Sample size considerations for stratified cluster randomization design with binary outcomes and varying cluster size

Stratified cluster randomization trials (CRTs) have been frequently employed in clinical and healthcare research. Comparing with simple randomized CRTs, stratified CRTs reduce the imbalance of baseline prognostic factors among different intervention groups. Due to the popularity, there has been a growing interest in methodological development on sample size estimation and power analysis for stratified CRTs; however, existing work mostly assumes equal cluster size within each stratum and uses multilevel models. Clusters are often naturally formed with random sizes in CRTs. With varying cluster size, commonly used ad hoc approaches ignore the variability in cluster size, which may underestimate (overestimate) the required number of clusters for each group per stratum and lead to underpowered (overpowered) clinical trials. We propose closed-form sample size formulas for estimating the required total number of subjects and for estimating the number of clusters for each group per stratum, based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for stratified cluster randomization design with binary outcomes, accounting for both clustering and varying cluster size. We investigate the impact of various design parameters on the relative change in the required number of clusters for each group per stratum due to varying cluster size. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed sample size method. A real application example of a pragmatic stratified CRT of a triad of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and hypertension is presented for illustration.     

Sample size calculation for cluster randomized cross-over trials

The cluster randomized cross-over design has been proposed in particular because it prevents an imbalance that may bring into question the internal validity of parallel group cluster trials. We derived a sample size formula for continuous outcomes that takes into account both the intraclass correlation coefficient (representing the clustering effect) and the interperiod correlation (induced by the cross-over design).     

Sample size re-estimation in cluster randomization trials

Cluster randomization trials in which families are the unit of allocation are commonly adopted for the evaluation of disease prevention interventions. Sample size estimation for cluster randomization trials depends on parameters that quantify the variability within and between clusters and the variability in cluster size. Accurate advance estimates of these nuisance parameters may be difficult to obtain and misspecification may lead to an underpowered study. Since families are typically recruited over time, we propose using a portion of the data to estimate the nuisance parameters and to re-estimate sample size based on the estimates. This extends the standard internal pilot study methods to the setting of cluster randomization trials. The effect of this design on the power, significance level and sample size is analysed via simulation and is shown to provide a flexible and practical approach to cluster randomization trials.     

Measures of between‐cluster variability in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of health‐care interventions. A key feature of CRTs is that the observations on individuals within clusters are correlated as a result of between‐cluster variability. Sample size formulae exist which account for such correlations, but they make different assumptions regarding the between‐cluster variability in the intervention arm of a trial, resulting in different sample size estimates. We explore the relationship for binary outcome data between two common measures of between‐cluster variability: k, the coefficient of variation and ρ, the intracluster correlation coefficient. We then assess how the assumptions of constant k or ρ across treatment arms correspond to different assumptions about intervention effects. We assess implications for sample size estimation and present a simple solution to the problems outlined. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials are increasingly popular. In many of these trials, cluster sizes are unequal. This can affect trial power, but standard sample size formulae for these trials ignore this. Previous studies addressing this issue have mostly focused on continuous outcomes or methods that are sometimes difficult to use in practice. METHODS: We show how a simple formula can be used to judge the possible effect of unequal cluster sizes for various types of analyses and both continuous and binary outcomes. We explore the practical estimation of the coefficient of variation of cluster size required in this formula and demonstrate the formula's performance for a hypothetical but typical trial randomizing UK general practices. RESULTS: The simple formula provides a good estimate of sample size requirements for trials analysed using cluster-level analyses weighting by cluster size and a conservative estimate for other types of analyses. For trials randomizing UK general practices the coefficient of variation of cluster size depends on variation in practice list size, variation in incidence or prevalence of the medical condition under examination, and practice and patient recruitment strategies, and for many trials is expected to be approximately 0.65. Individual-level analyses can be noticeably more efficient than some cluster-level analyses in this context. CONCLUSIONS: When the coefficient of variation is <0.23, the effect of adjustment for variable cluster size on sample size is negligible. Most trials randomizing UK general practices and many other cluster randomized trials should account for variable cluster size in their sample size calculations.     

Incorporating pragmatic features into power analysis for cluster randomized trials with a count outcome

Cluster randomized designs are frequently employed in pragmatic clinical trials which test interventions in the full spectrum of everyday clinical settings in order to maximize applicability and generalizability. In this study, we propose to directly incorporate pragmatic features into power analysis for cluster randomized trials with count outcomes. The pragmatic features considered include arbitrary randomization ratio, overdispersion, random variability in cluster size, and unequal lengths of follow-up over which the count outcome is measured. The proposed method is developed based on generalized estimating equation (GEE) and it is advantageous in that the sample size formula retains a closed form, facilitating its implementation in pragmatic trials. We theoretically explore the impact of various pragmatic features on sample size requirements. An efficient Jackknife algorithm is presented to address the problem of underestimated variance by the GEE sandwich estimator when the number of clusters is small. We assess the performance of the proposed sample size method through extensive simulation and an application example to a real clinical trial is presented.     

Recruitment strategies in a cluster randomized trial--cost implications

The presence of a non-zero intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trial data has well-known statistical implications for trial design, in particular, inflating the required sample size for given specifications. However, problems in recruitment are common in such trials and there may be different costs of recruitment resulting from different recruitment strategies. Examples of how such differences arise are taken from cluster randomized trials and more intuitive methods of describing clustering are summarized which, in conjunction with such cost issues, may provide a framework that enables triallists to consider explicitly the trade-off between power and cost that is often inherent in such trials.     

The effect of cluster size imbalance and covariates on the estimation performance of quadratic inference functions

Generalized estimating equations (GEE) are commonly used for the analysis of correlated data. However, use of quadratic inference functions (QIFs) is becoming popular because it increases efficiency relative to GEE when the working covariance structure is misspecified. Although shown to be advantageous in the literature, the impacts of covariates and imbalanced cluster sizes on the estimation performance of the QIF method in finite samples have not been studied. This cluster size variation causes QIF's estimating equations and GEE to be in separate classes when an exchangeable correlation structure is implemented, causing QIF and GEE to be incomparable in terms of efficiency. When utilizing this structure and the number of clusters is not large, we discuss how covariates and cluster size imbalance can cause QIF, rather than GEE, to produce estimates with the larger variability. This occurrence is mainly due to the empirical nature of weighting QIF employs, rather than differences in estimating equations classes. We demonstrate QIF's lost estimation precision through simulation studies covering a variety of general cluster randomized trial scenarios and compare QIF and GEE in the analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Re‐estimating sample size in cluster randomised trials with active recruitment within clusters

Often only a limited number of clusters can be obtained in cluster randomised trials, although many potential participants can be recruited within each cluster. Thus, active recruitment is feasible within the clusters. To obtain an efficient sample size in a cluster randomised trial, the cluster level and individual level variance should be known before the study starts, but this is often not the case. We suggest using an internal pilot study design to address this problem of unknown variances. A pilot can be useful to re‐estimate the variances and re‐calculate the sample size during the trial. Using simulated data, it is shown that an initially low or high power can be adjusted using an internal pilot with the type I error rate remaining within an acceptable range. The intracluster correlation coefficient can be re‐estimated with more precision, which has a positive effect on the sample size. We conclude that an internal pilot study design may be used if active recruitment is feasible within a limited number of clusters. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparing completely and stratified randomized designs in cluster randomized trials when the stratifying factor is cluster size: a simulation study

Stratified randomized designs are popular in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) because they increase the chance of the intervention groups being well balanced in terms of identified prognostic factors at baseline and may increase statistical power. The objective of this paper is to assess the gains in power obtained by stratifying randomization by cluster size, when cluster size is associated with an important cluster level factor which is otherwise unaccounted for in data analysis. A simulation study was carried out using a CRT where UK general practices were the randomized units as a template. The results show that when cluster size is strongly associated with a cluster level factor which is predictive of outcome, the stratified randomized design has superior power results to the completely randomized design and that the superiority is related to the number of clusters.     

Sample size calculation for stepped wedge and other longitudinal cluster randomised trials

The sample size required for a cluster randomised trial is inflated compared with an individually randomised trial because outcomes of participants from the same cluster are correlated. Sample size calculations for longitudinal cluster randomised trials (including stepped wedge trials) need to take account of at least two levels of clustering: the clusters themselves and times within clusters. We derive formulae for sample size for repeated cross‐section and closed cohort cluster randomised trials with normally distributed outcome measures, under a multilevel model allowing for variation between clusters and between times within clusters. Our formulae agree with those previously described for special cases such as crossover and analysis of covariance designs, although simulation suggests that the formulae could underestimate required sample size when the number of clusters is small. Whether using a formula or simulation, a sample size calculation requires estimates of nuisance parameters, which in our model include the intracluster correlation, cluster autocorrelation, and individual autocorrelation. A cluster autocorrelation less than 1 reflects a situation where individuals sampled from the same cluster at different times have less correlated outcomes than individuals sampled from the same cluster at the same time. Nuisance parameters could be estimated from time series obtained in similarly clustered settings with the same outcome measure, using analysis of variance to estimate variance components. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A comparison of confidence interval methods for the intraclass correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials

This study compared different methods for assigning confidence intervals to the analysis of variance estimator of the intraclass correlation coefficient (rho). The context of the comparison was the use of rho to estimate the variance inflation factor when planning cluster randomized trials. The methods were compared using Monte Carlo simulations of unbalanced clustered data and data from a cluster randomized trial of an intervention to improve the management of asthma in a general practice setting. The coverage and precision of the intervals were compared for data with different numbers of clusters, mean numbers of subjects per cluster and underlying values of rho. The performance of the methods was also compared for data with Normal and non-Normally distributed cluster specific effects. Results of the simulations showed that methods based upon the variance ratio statistic provided greater coverage levels than those based upon large sample approximations to the standard error of rho. Searle's method provided close to nominal coverage for data with Normally distributed random effects. Adjusted versions of Searle's method to allow for lack of balance in the data generally did not improve upon it either in terms of coverage or precision. Analyses of the trial data, however, showed that limits provided by Thomas and Hultquist's method may differ from those of the other variance ratio statistic methods when the arithmetic mean differs markedly from the harmonic mean cluster size. The simulation results demonstrated that marked non-Normality in the cluster level random effects compromised the performance of all methods. Confidence intervals for the methods were generally wide relative to the underlying size of rho suggesting that there may be great uncertainty associated with sample size calculations for cluster trials where large clusters are randomized. Data from cluster based studies with sample sizes much larger than those typical of cluster randomized trials are required to estimate rho with a reasonable degree of precision.     

Methods for covariate adjustment in cost-effectiveness analysis that use cluster randomised trials

Statistical methods have been developed for cost-effectiveness analyses of cluster randomised trials (CRTs) where baseline covariates are balanced. However, CRTs may show systematic differences in individual and cluster-level covariates between the treatment groups. This paper presents three methods to adjust for imbalances in observed covariates: seemingly unrelated regression with a robust standard error, a 'two-stage' bootstrap approach combined with seemingly unrelated regression and multilevel models. We consider the methods in a cost-effectiveness analysis of a CRT with covariate imbalance, unequal cluster sizes and a prognostic relationship that varied by treatment group. The cost-effectiveness results differed according to the approach for covariate adjustment. A simulation study then assessed the relative performance of methods for addressing systematic imbalance in baseline covariates. The simulations extended the case study and considered scenarios with different levels of confounding, cluster size variation and few clusters. Performance was reported as bias, root mean squared error and CI coverage of the incremental net benefit. Even with low levels of confounding, unadjusted methods were biased, but all adjusted methods were unbiased. Multilevel models performed well across all settings, and unlike the other methods, reported CI coverage close to nominal levels even with few clusters of unequal sizes.     

A note on sample size calculations for cluster randomised crossover trials with a fixed number of clusters

Girardeau, Ravaud and Donner in 2008 presented a formula for sample size calculations for cluster randomised crossover trials, when the intracluster correlation coefficient, interperiod correlation coefficient and mean cluster size are specified in advance. However, in many randomised trials, the number of clusters is constrained in some way, but the mean cluster size is not. We present a version of the Girardeau formula for sample size calculations for cluster randomised crossover trials when the number of clusters is fixed. Formulae are given for the minimum number of clusters, the maximum cluster size and the relationship between the correlation coefficients when there are constraints on both the number of clusters and the cluster size. Our version of the formula may aid the efficient planning and design of cluster randomised crossover trials.     

Admissible multiarm stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial designs

Numerous publications have now addressed the principles of designing, analyzing, and reporting the results of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials. In contrast, there is little research available pertaining to the design and analysis of multiarm stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of multiple experimental interventions. In this paper, we address this by explaining how the required sample size in these multiarm trials can be ascertained when data are to be analyzed using a linear mixed model. We then go on to describe how the design of such trials can be optimized to balance between minimizing the cost of the trial and minimizing some function of the covariance matrix of the treatment effect estimates. Using a recently commenced trial that will evaluate the effectiveness of sensor monitoring in an occupational therapy rehabilitation program for older persons after hip fracture as an example, we demonstrate that our designs could reduce the number of observations required for a fixed power level by up to 58%. Consequently, when logistical constraints permit the utilization of any one of a range of possible multiarm stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial designs, researchers should consider employing our approach to optimize their trials efficiency.     

Sample size estimation for stratified individual and cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes

Individual randomized trials (IRTs) and cluster randomized trials (CRTs) with binary outcomes arise in a variety of settings and are often analyzed by logistic regression (fitted using generalized estimating equations for CRTs). The effect of stratification on the required sample size is less well understood for trials with binary outcomes than for continuous outcomes. We propose easy-to-use methods for sample size estimation for stratified IRTs and CRTs and demonstrate the use of these methods for a tuberculosis prevention CRT currently being planned. For both IRTs and CRTs, we also identify the ratio of the sample size for a stratified trial vs a comparably powered unstratified trial, allowing investigators to evaluate how stratification will affect the required sample size when planning a trial. For CRTs, these can be used when the investigator has estimates of the within-stratum intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) or by assuming a common within-stratum ICC. Using these methods, we describe scenarios where stratification may have a practically important impact on the required sample size. We find that in the two-stratum case, for both IRTs and for CRTs with very small cluster sizes, there are unlikely to be plausible scenarios in which an important sample size reduction is achieved when the overall probability of a subject experiencing the event of interest is low. When the probability of events is not small, or when cluster sizes are large, however, there are scenarios where practically important reductions in sample size result from stratification.     

Unequal cluster sizes for trials in English and Welsh general practice: implications for sample size calculations

Cluster randomized trials are often used in primary care settings. In the U.K., general practices are usually the unit of allocation. The effect of variability in practice list size on sample size calculations is demonstrated using the General Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales, 1997. Summary statistics and tables are given to help design such trials assuming that a fixed proportion of patients are to be recruited from each cluster. Three different weightings of the cluster means are compared: uniform, cluster size and minimum variance weights. Minimum variance weights are shown to be superior to uniform, particularly when clusters are small, and to cluster size weights, particularly when clusters are large. Where there are large numbers of participants per cluster and cluster size weights are used, the power actually falls as more patients are recruited to large clusters. When minimum variance weights are used the increase in the design effect due to variation in list size is small, regardless of the size of intracluster correlation coefficient or the number of participants per cluster, provided there is no loss of randomized units. When the expected number of participants per practice is low a greater loss in power comes from practices which fail to recruit patients. A method to estimate the likely effect and allow for it is presented.     

Sample size and power calculations for open cohort longitudinal cluster randomized trials

When calculating sample size or power for stepped wedge or other types of longitudinal cluster randomized trials, it is critical that the planned sampling structure be accurately specified. One common assumption is that participants will provide measurements in each trial period, that is, a closed cohort, and another is that each participant provides only one measurement during the course of the trial. However some studies have an “open cohort” sampling structure, where participants may provide measurements in variable numbers of periods. To date, sample size calculations for longitudinal cluster randomized trials have not accommodated open cohorts. Feldman and McKinlay (1994) provided some guidance, stating that the participant-level autocorrelation could be varied to account for the degree of overlap in different periods of the study, but did not indicate precisely how to do so. We present sample size and power formulas that allow for open cohorts and discuss the impact of the degree of “openness” on sample size and power. We consider designs where the number of participants in each cluster will be maintained throughout the trial, but individual participants may provide differing numbers of measurements. Our results are a unification of closed cohort and repeated cross-sectional sample results of Hooper et al (2016), and indicate precisely how participant autocorrelation of Feldman and McKinlay should be varied to account for an open cohort sampling structure. We discuss different types of open cohort sampling schemes and how open cohort sampling structure impacts on power in the presence of decaying within-cluster correlations and autoregressive participant-level errors.     

A comparison of methods to analyse continuous data from pseudo cluster randomized trials

A major methodological reason to use cluster randomization is to avoid the contamination that would arise in an individually randomized design. However, when patient recruitment cannot be completed before randomization of clusters, the non-blindedness of recruiters and patients may cause selection bias, while in the control clusters, it may slow recruitment due to patient or recruiter preferences for the intervention. As a compromise, pseudo cluster randomization has been proposed. Because no insight is available into the relative performance of methods to analyse data obtained from this design, we compared the type I and II error rates of mixed models, generalized estimating equations (GEE) and a paired t-test to those of the estimator originally proposed in this design. The bias in the point estimate and its standard error were also incorporated into this comparison. Furthermore, we evaluated the effect of the weighting scheme and the accuracy of the sample size formula that have been described previously. Power levels of the originally proposed estimator and the unweighted mixed models were in agreement with the sample size formula, but the power of paired t-test fell short. GEE produced too large type I errors, unless the number of clusters was large (>30-40 per arm). The use of the weighting scheme generally enhanced the power, but at the cost of increasing the type I error in mixed models and GEE. We recommend unweighted mixed models as the best compromise between feasibility and power to analyse data from a pseudo cluster randomized trial.     

Pseudo cluster randomization: a treatment allocation method to minimize contamination and selection bias

In some clinical trials, treatment allocation on a patient level is not feasible, and whole groups or clusters of patients are allocated to the same treatment. If, for example, a clinical trial is investigating the efficacy of various patient coaching methods and randomization is done on a patient level, then patients who are receiving different methods may come into contact with each other and influence each other. This would create contamination of the treatment effects. Such bias might be prevented by randomization on the coaches level. The patients of a coach constitute a cluster and all the subjects in that cluster receive the same treatment. Disadvantages of this approach may be reduced statistical efficiency and recruitment bias, as the treatment that a subject will receive is known in advance. Pseudo cluster randomization avoids this, because in pseudo cluster randomization, not everybody in a certain cluster receives the same treatment, just the majority. There are two groups of clusters: in one group the majority of subjects receive treatment A, while a limited number receive treatment B. In the other group of clusters the proportions are reversed. The statistical properties of this method are described. When contamination is present, the method appears to be more efficient than randomization on a patient level or on a cluster level.