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 requirements for detecting treatment effect heterogeneity in cluster randomized trials

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) refer to experiments with randomization carried out at the cluster or the group level. While numerous statistical methods have been developed for the design and analysis of CRTs, most of the existing methods focused on testing the overall treatment effect across the population characteristics, with few discussions on the differential treatment effect among subpopulations. In addition, the sample size and power requirements for detecting differential treatment effect in CRTs remain unclear, but are helpful for studies planned with such an objective. In this article, we develop a new sample size formula for detecting treatment effect heterogeneity in two-level CRTs for continuous outcomes, continuous or binary covariates measured at cluster or individual level. We also investigate the roles of two intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs): the adjusted ICC for the outcome of interest and the marginal ICC for the covariate of interest. We further derive a closed-form design effect formula to facilitate the application of the proposed method, and provide extensions to accommodate multiple covariates. Extensive simulations are carried out to validate the proposed formula in finite samples. We find that the empirical power agrees well with the prediction across a range of parameter constellations, when data are analyzed by a linear mixed effects model with a treatment-by-covariate interaction. Finally, we use data from the HF-ACTION study to illustrate the proposed sample size procedure for detecting heterogeneous treatment effects.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Sample size calculation in three-level cluster randomized trials using generalized estimating equation models

Three-level cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly used in implementation science, where 2fold-nested-correlated data arise. For example, interventions are randomly assigned to practices, and providers within the same practice who provide care to participants are trained with the assigned intervention. Teerenstra et al proposed a nested exchangeable correlation structure that accounts for two levels of clustering within the generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach. In this article, we utilize GEE models to test the treatment effect in a two-group comparison for continuous, binary, or count data in three-level CRTs. Given the nested exchangeable correlation structure, we derive the asymptotic variances of the estimator of the treatment effect for different types of outcomes. When the number of clusters is small, researchers have proposed bias-corrected sandwich estimators to improve performance in two-level CRTs. We extend the variances of two bias-corrected sandwich estimators to three-level CRTs. The equal provider and practice sizes were assumed to calculate number of practices for simplicity. However, they are not guaranteed in practice. Relative efficiency (RE) is defined as the ratio of variance of the estimator of the treatment effect for equal to unequal provider and practice sizes. The expressions of REs are obtained from both asymptotic variance estimation and bias-corrected sandwich estimators. Their performances are evaluated for different scenarios of provider and practice size distributions through simulation studies. Finally, a percentage increase in the number of practices is proposed due to efficiency loss from unequal provider and/or practice sizes.     

Sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness cluster randomized trials: optimal and maximin approaches

In this paper, the optimal sample sizes at the cluster and person levels for each of two treatment arms are obtained for cluster randomized trials where the cost‐effectiveness of treatments on a continuous scale is studied. The optimal sample sizes maximize the efficiency or power for a given budget or minimize the budget for a given efficiency or power. Optimal sample sizes require information on the intra‐cluster correlations (ICCs) for effects and costs, the correlations between costs and effects at individual and cluster levels, the ratio of the variance of effects translated into costs to the variance of the costs (the variance ratio), sampling and measuring costs, and the budget. When planning, a study information on the model parameters usually is not available. To overcome this local optimality problem, the current paper also presents maximin sample sizes. The maximin sample sizes turn out to be rather robust against misspecifying the correlation between costs and effects at the cluster and individual levels but may lose much efficiency when misspecifying the variance ratio. The robustness of the maximin sample sizes against misspecifying the ICCs depends on the variance ratio. The maximin sample sizes are robust under misspecification of the ICC for costs for realistic values of the variance ratio greater than one but not robust under misspecification of the ICC for effects. Finally, we show how to calculate optimal or maximin sample sizes that yield sufficient power for a test on the cost‐effectiveness of an intervention. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in cluster randomized trials

For cluster randomized trials with a continuous outcome, the sample size is often calculated as if an analysis of the outcomes at the end of the treatment period (follow‐up scores) would be performed. However, often a baseline measurement of the outcome is available or feasible to obtain. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using both the baseline and follow‐up score of the outcome will then have more power. We calculate the efficiency of an ANCOVA analysis using the baseline scores compared with an analysis on follow‐up scores only. The sample size for such an ANCOVA analysis is a factor r² smaller, where r is the correlation of the cluster means between baseline and follow‐up. This correlation can be expressed in clinically interpretable parameters: the correlation between baseline and follow‐up of subjects (subject autocorrelation) and that of clusters (cluster autocorrelation). Because of this, subject matter knowledge can be used to provide (range of) plausible values for these correlations, when estimates from previous studies are lacking. Depending on how large the subject and cluster autocorrelations are, analysis of covariance can substantially reduce the number of clusters needed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Performance of analytical methods for overdispersed counts in cluster randomized trials: Sample size,degree of clustering and imbalance

Many different methods have been proposed for the analysis of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) over the last 30 years. However, the evaluation of methods on overdispersed count data has been based mostly on the comparison of results using empiric data; i.e. when the true model parameters are not known. In this study, we assess via simulation the performance of five methods for the analysis of counts in situations similar to real community‐intervention trials. We used the negative binomial distribution to simulate overdispersed counts of CRTs with two study arms, allowing the period of time under observation to vary among individuals. We assessed different sample sizes, degrees of clustering and degrees of cluster‐size imbalance. The compared methods are: (i) the two‐sample t‐test of cluster‐level rates, (ii) generalized estimating equations (GEE) with empirical covariance estimators, (iii) GEE with model‐based covariance estimators, (iv) generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) and (v) Bayesian hierarchical models (Bayes‐HM). Variation in sample size and clustering led to differences between the methods in terms of coverage, significance, power and random‐effects estimation. GLMM and Bayes‐HM performed better in general with Bayes‐HM producing less dispersed results for random‐effects estimates although upward biased when clustering was low. GEE showed higher power but anticonservative coverage and elevated type I error rates. Imbalance affected the overall performance of the cluster‐level t‐test and the GEE's coverage in small samples. Important effects arising from accounting for overdispersion are illustrated through the analysis of a community‐intervention trial on Solar Water Disinfection in rural Bolivia. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size calculation for cluster randomization trials with a time-to-event endpoint

Cluster randomization trials randomize groups (called clusters) of subjects (called subunits) between intervention arms, and observations are collected from each subject. In this case, subunits within each cluster share common frailties, so that the observations from subunits of each cluster tend to be correlated. Oftentimes, the outcome of a cluster randomization trial is a time-to-event endpoint with censoring. In this article, we propose a closed form sample size formula for weighted rank tests to compare the marginal survival distributions between intervention arms under cluster randomization with possibly variable cluster sizes. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the performance of our sample size formula under various design settings. Real study examples are taken to demonstrate our method.     

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.     

Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach

ObjectivesTo clarify and illustrate sample size calculations for the cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) and to present a simple approach for comparing the efficiencies of competing designs within a unified framework.Study Design and SettingWe summarize design effects for the SW-CRT, the parallel cluster randomized trial (CRT), and the parallel cluster randomized trial with before and after observations (CRT-BA), assuming cross-sectional samples are selected over time. We present new formulas that enable trialists to determine the required cluster size for a given number of clusters. We illustrate by example how to implement the presented design effects and give practical guidance on the design of stepped wedge studies.ResultsFor a fixed total cluster size, the choice of study design that provides the greatest power depends on the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and the cluster size. When the ICC is small, the CRT tends to be more efficient; when the ICC is large, the SW-CRT tends to be more efficient and can serve as an alternative design when the CRT is an infeasible design.ConclusionOur unified approach allows trialists to easily compare the efficiencies of three competing designs to inform the decision about the most efficient design in a given scenario.     

Sample size requirements to detect an intervention by time interaction in longitudinal cluster randomized clinical trials

In designing a longitudinal cluster randomized clinical trial (cluster‐RCT), the interventions are randomly assigned to clusters such as clinics. Subjects within the same clinic will receive the identical intervention. Each will be assessed repeatedly over the course of the study. A mixed‐effects linear regression model can be applied in a cluster‐RCT with three‐level data to test the hypothesis that the intervention groups differ in the course of outcome over time. Using a test statistic based on maximum likelihood estimates, we derived closed‐form formulae for statistical power to detect the intervention by time interaction and the sample size requirements for each level. Importantly, the sample size does not depend on correlations among second‐level data units and the statistical power function depends on the number of second‐ and third‐level data units through their product. A simulation study confirmed that theoretical power estimates based on the derived formulae are nearly identical to empirical estimates. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size calculations for micro‐randomized trials in mHealth

The use and development of mobile interventions are experiencing rapid growth. In “just‐in‐time” mobile interventions, treatments are provided via a mobile device, and they are intended to help an individual make healthy decisions ‘in the moment,’ and thus have a proximal, near future impact. Currently, the development of mobile interventions is proceeding at a much faster pace than that of associated data science methods. A first step toward developing data‐based methods is to provide an experimental design for testing the proximal effects of these just‐in‐time treatments. In this paper, we propose a ‘micro‐randomized’ trial design for this purpose. In a micro‐randomized trial, treatments are sequentially randomized throughout the conduct of the study, with the result that each participant may be randomized at the 100s or 1000s of occasions at which a treatment might be provided. Further, we develop a test statistic for assessing the proximal effect of a treatment as well as an associated sample size calculator. We conduct simulation evaluations of the sample size calculator in various settings. Rules of thumb that might be used in designing a micro‐randomized trial are discussed. This work is motivated by our collaboration on the HeartSteps mobile application designed to increase physical activity. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size calculations for pilot randomized trials: a confidence interval approach

ObjectivesTo describe a method using confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate the sample size for a pilot randomized trial.Study DesignUsing one-sided CIs and the estimated effect size that would be sought in a large trial, we calculated the sample size needed for pilot trials.ResultsUsing an 80% one-sided CI, we estimated that a pilot trial should have at least 9% of the sample size of the main planned trial.ConclusionUsing the estimated effect size difference for the main trial and using a one-sided CI, this allows us to calculate a sample size for a pilot trial, which will make its results more useful than at present.     

Cluster size variability and imbalance in cluster randomized controlled trials

Cluster randomized controlled trials are increasingly used to evaluate medical interventions. Research has found that cluster size variability leads to a reduction in the overall effective sample size. Although reporting standards of cluster trials have started to evolve, a far greater degree of transparency is needed to ensure that robust evidence is presented. The use of the numbers of patients recruited to summarize recruitment rate should be avoided in favour of an improved metric that illustrates cumulative power and accounts for cluster variability. Data from four trials is included to show the link between cluster size variability and imbalance. Furthermore, using simulations it is demonstrated that by randomising using a two block randomization strategy and weighting the second by cluster size recruitment, chance imbalance can be minimized.     

阶梯整群随机对照试验的样本量和功效计算方法

目的 介绍阶梯整群随机对照试验（SW-CRT）的样本量和功效计算方法。 方法 参考既往的相关方法学研究,并配合实际案例,介绍SW-CRT两种情景下的样本量和功效计算方法、具体实现步骤和实现工具。 结果 利用所介绍的公式能方便计算已知每群调查样本量或已知调查总群数的两种情景下满足样本功效要求的样本量,推荐使用Stata软件提供的steppedwedge程序进行样本功效的计算。结论 本研究能够为相关研究者的研究设计和结果检验工作提供具有实际操作意义的方法选择。     

Power and sample size requirements for GEE analyses of cluster randomized crossover trials

The cluster randomized crossover design has been proposed to improve efficiency over the traditional parallel cluster randomized design, which often involves a limited number of clusters. In recent years, the cluster randomized crossover design has been increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of health care policy or programs, and the interest often lies in quantifying the population-averaged intervention effect. In this paper, we consider the two-treatment two-period crossover design, and develop sample size procedures for continuous and binary outcomes corresponding to a population-averaged model estimated by generalized estimating equations, accounting for both within-period and interperiod correlations. In particular, we show that the required sample size depends on the correlation parameters through an eigenvalue of the within-cluster correlation matrix for continuous outcomes and through two distinct eigenvalues of the correlation matrix for binary outcomes. We demonstrate that the empirical power corresponds well with the predicted power by the proposed formulae for as few as eight clusters, when outcomes are analyzed using the matrix-adjusted estimating equations for the correlation parameters concurrently with a suitable bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator.     

Sample size adjustments for varying cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes analyzed with second‐order PQL mixed logistic regression

Adjustments of sample size formulas are given for varying cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials with a binary outcome when testing the treatment effect with mixed effects logistic regression using second‐order penalized quasi‐likelihood estimation (PQL). Starting from first‐order marginal quasi‐likelihood (MQL) estimation of the treatment effect, the asymptotic relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes is derived. A Monte Carlo simulation study shows this asymptotic relative efficiency to be rather accurate for realistic sample sizes, when employing second‐order PQL. An approximate, simpler formula is presented to estimate the efficiency loss due to varying cluster sizes when planning a trial. In many cases sampling 14 per cent more clusters is sufficient to repair the efficiency loss due to varying cluster sizes. Since current closed‐form formulas for sample size calculation are based on first‐order MQL, planning a trial also requires a conversion factor to obtain the variance of the second‐order PQL estimator. In a second Monte Carlo study, this conversion factor turned out to be 1.25 at most. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.