对具有少量分组和连续结果的阶梯式分组试验进行稳健分析的固定效应模型:一项模拟研究。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Trials Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08572-1
Kenneth Menglin Lee, Yin Bun Cheung
{"title":"对具有少量分组和连续结果的阶梯式分组试验进行稳健分析的固定效应模型:一项模拟研究。","authors":"Kenneth Menglin Lee, Yin Bun Cheung","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08572-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stepped-wedge cluster trials (SW-CTs) describe a cluster trial design where treatment rollout is staggered over the course of the trial. Clusters are commonly randomized to receive treatment beginning at different time points in this study design (commonly referred to as a Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial; SW-CRT), but they can also be non-randomized. Trials with this design regularly have a low number of clusters and can be vulnerable to covariate imbalance. To address such covariate imbalance, previous work has examined covariate-constrained randomization and analysis adjustment for imbalanced covariates in mixed-effects models. These methods require the imbalanced covariate to always be known and measured. In contrast, the fixed-effects model automatically adjusts for all imbalanced time-invariant covariates, both measured and unmeasured, and has been implicated to have proper type I error control in SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and binary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We present a simulation study comparing the performance of the fixed-effects model against the mixed-effects model in randomized and non-randomized SW-CTs with small numbers of clusters and continuous outcomes. Additionally, we compare these models in scenarios with cluster-level covariate imbalances or confounding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the mixed-effects model can have low coverage probabilities and inflated type I error rates in SW-CTs with continuous outcomes, especially with a small number of clusters or when the ICC is low. Furthermore, mixed-effects models with a Satterthwaite or Kenward-Roger small sample correction can still result in inflated or overly conservative type I error rates, respectively. In contrast, the fixed-effects model consistently produced the target level of coverage probability and type I error rates without dramatically compromising power. Furthermore, the fixed-effects model was able to automatically account for all time-invariant cluster-level covariate imbalances and confounding to robustly yield unbiased estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We recommend the fixed-effects model for robust analysis of SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and continuous outcomes, due to its proper type I error control and ability to automatically adjust for all potential imbalanced time-invariant cluster-level covariates and confounders.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"718"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515801/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The fixed-effects model for robust analysis of stepped-wedge cluster trials with a small number of clusters and continuous outcomes: a simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth Menglin Lee, Yin Bun Cheung\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-024-08572-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stepped-wedge cluster trials (SW-CTs) describe a cluster trial design where treatment rollout is staggered over the course of the trial. Clusters are commonly randomized to receive treatment beginning at different time points in this study design (commonly referred to as a Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial; SW-CRT), but they can also be non-randomized. Trials with this design regularly have a low number of clusters and can be vulnerable to covariate imbalance. To address such covariate imbalance, previous work has examined covariate-constrained randomization and analysis adjustment for imbalanced covariates in mixed-effects models. These methods require the imbalanced covariate to always be known and measured. In contrast, the fixed-effects model automatically adjusts for all imbalanced time-invariant covariates, both measured and unmeasured, and has been implicated to have proper type I error control in SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and binary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We present a simulation study comparing the performance of the fixed-effects model against the mixed-effects model in randomized and non-randomized SW-CTs with small numbers of clusters and continuous outcomes. Additionally, we compare these models in scenarios with cluster-level covariate imbalances or confounding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the mixed-effects model can have low coverage probabilities and inflated type I error rates in SW-CTs with continuous outcomes, especially with a small number of clusters or when the ICC is low. Furthermore, mixed-effects models with a Satterthwaite or Kenward-Roger small sample correction can still result in inflated or overly conservative type I error rates, respectively. In contrast, the fixed-effects model consistently produced the target level of coverage probability and type I error rates without dramatically compromising power. Furthermore, the fixed-effects model was able to automatically account for all time-invariant cluster-level covariate imbalances and confounding to robustly yield unbiased estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We recommend the fixed-effects model for robust analysis of SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and continuous outcomes, due to its proper type I error control and ability to automatically adjust for all potential imbalanced time-invariant cluster-level covariates and confounders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"718\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515801/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08572-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08572-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:阶梯楔形分组试验(SW-CT)描述了一种分组试验设计,即在试验过程中交错推出治疗方案。在这种研究设计中,分组通常被随机分配在不同的时间点开始接受治疗(通常称为阶梯式楔形分组随机试验;SW-CRT),但也可以是非随机的。采用这种设计的试验通常群组数量较少,容易出现协变量失衡。为了解决这种协变量不平衡的问题,以往的工作研究了协变量约束随机化和混合效应模型中对不平衡协变量的分析调整。这些方法要求不平衡协变量始终是已知和测量的。与此相反,固定效应模型可自动调整所有不平衡的时变协变量,包括已测量和未测量的协变量,并且在具有少量聚类和二元结果的 SW-CT 中具有适当的 I 型误差控制:我们进行了一项模拟研究,比较了固定效应模型与混合效应模型在具有少量聚类和连续结果的随机和非随机 SW-CT 中的表现。此外,我们还比较了这些模型在群组级协变量不平衡或混杂情况下的表现:结果:我们发现,在具有连续结果的 SW-CT 中,混合效应模型的覆盖概率较低,I 型错误率较高,尤其是在聚类数较少或 ICC 较低的情况下。此外,采用 Satterthwaite 或 Kenward-Roger 小样本校正的混合效应模型仍会分别导致 I 型误差率膨胀或过于保守。与此相反,固定效应模型能持续产生目标水平的覆盖概率和 I 型误差率,而不会显著降低研究的有效性。此外,固定效应模型还能自动考虑所有时间不变的群组级协变量不平衡和混杂因素,从而稳健地得出无偏估计值:我们推荐使用固定效应模型对具有少量聚类和连续结果的 SW-CT 进行稳健分析,因为该模型具有适当的 I 型误差控制,并能自动调整所有潜在的不平衡时间变异聚类水平协变量和混杂因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The fixed-effects model for robust analysis of stepped-wedge cluster trials with a small number of clusters and continuous outcomes: a simulation study.

Background: Stepped-wedge cluster trials (SW-CTs) describe a cluster trial design where treatment rollout is staggered over the course of the trial. Clusters are commonly randomized to receive treatment beginning at different time points in this study design (commonly referred to as a Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial; SW-CRT), but they can also be non-randomized. Trials with this design regularly have a low number of clusters and can be vulnerable to covariate imbalance. To address such covariate imbalance, previous work has examined covariate-constrained randomization and analysis adjustment for imbalanced covariates in mixed-effects models. These methods require the imbalanced covariate to always be known and measured. In contrast, the fixed-effects model automatically adjusts for all imbalanced time-invariant covariates, both measured and unmeasured, and has been implicated to have proper type I error control in SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and binary outcomes.

Methods: We present a simulation study comparing the performance of the fixed-effects model against the mixed-effects model in randomized and non-randomized SW-CTs with small numbers of clusters and continuous outcomes. Additionally, we compare these models in scenarios with cluster-level covariate imbalances or confounding.

Results: We found that the mixed-effects model can have low coverage probabilities and inflated type I error rates in SW-CTs with continuous outcomes, especially with a small number of clusters or when the ICC is low. Furthermore, mixed-effects models with a Satterthwaite or Kenward-Roger small sample correction can still result in inflated or overly conservative type I error rates, respectively. In contrast, the fixed-effects model consistently produced the target level of coverage probability and type I error rates without dramatically compromising power. Furthermore, the fixed-effects model was able to automatically account for all time-invariant cluster-level covariate imbalances and confounding to robustly yield unbiased estimates.

Conclusions: We recommend the fixed-effects model for robust analysis of SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and continuous outcomes, due to its proper type I error control and ability to automatically adjust for all potential imbalanced time-invariant cluster-level covariates and confounders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
期刊最新文献
Agile monitoring dashboard for clinical research studies. A study protocol for a multi-country cluster randomized controlled trial of the impact of a multi-component One Health strategy to eliminate Opisthorchis viverrini and soil transmitted helminths in the Lower Mekong Basin. Implementation and evaluation of a navigation program for people with cancer in old age and their family caregivers: study protocol for the EU NAVIGATE International Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparisons of efficacy and safety of 400 or 800 ml bacterial count fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial in China. High-concentrated platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus placebo in osteoarthritis in the thumb base: study protocol for an assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1