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.     

Efficient design of cluster randomized trials with treatment‐dependent costs and treatment‐dependent unknown variances

Cluster randomized trials evaluate the effect of a treatment on persons nested within clusters, where treatment is randomly assigned to clusters. Current equations for the optimal sample size at the cluster and person level assume that the outcome variances and/or the study costs are known and homogeneous between treatment arms. This paper presents efficient yet robust designs for cluster randomized trials with treatment‐dependent costs and treatment‐dependent unknown variances, and compares these with 2 practical designs. First, the maximin design (MMD) is derived, which maximizes the minimum efficiency (minimizes the maximum sampling variance) of the treatment effect estimator over a range of treatment‐to‐control variance ratios. The MMD is then compared with the optimal design for homogeneous variances and costs (balanced design), and with that for homogeneous variances and treatment‐dependent costs (cost‐considered design). The results show that the balanced design is the MMD if the treatment‐to control cost ratio is the same at both design levels (cluster, person) and within the range for the treatment‐to‐control variance ratio. It still is highly efficient and better than the cost‐considered design if the cost ratio is within the range for the squared variance ratio. Outside that range, the cost‐considered design is better and highly efficient, but it is not the MMD. An example shows sample size calculation for the MMD, and the computer code (SPSS and R) is provided as supplementary material. The MMD is recommended for trial planning if the study costs are treatment‐dependent and homogeneity of variances cannot be assumed.     

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).     

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 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.     

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 and robust marginal methods for cluster‐randomized trials with censored event times

In cluster‐randomized trials, intervention effects are often formulated by specifying marginal models, fitting them under a working independence assumption, and using robust variance estimates to address the association in the responses within clusters. We develop sample size criteria within this framework, with analyses based on semiparametric Cox regression models fitted with event times subject to right censoring. At the design stage, copula models are specified to enable derivation of the asymptotic variance of estimators from a marginal Cox regression model and to compute the number of clusters necessary to satisfy power requirements. Simulation studies demonstrate the validity of the sample size formula in finite samples for a range of cluster sizes, censoring rates, and degrees of within‐cluster association among event times. The power and relative efficiency implications of copula misspecification is studied, as well as the effect of within‐cluster dependence in the censoring times. Sample size criteria and other design issues are also addressed for the setting where the event status is only ascertained at periodic assessments and times are interval censored. Copyright © 2014 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized and multicentre trials

Cluster randomized and multicentre trials evaluate the effect of a treatment on persons nested within clusters, for instance, patients within clinics or pupils within schools. Optimal sample sizes at the cluster (centre) and person level have been derived under the restrictive assumption of equal sample sizes per cluster. This paper addresses the relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in case of cluster randomization and person randomization within clusters. Starting from maximum likelihood parameter estimation, the relative efficiency is investigated numerically for a range of cluster size distributions. An approximate formula is presented for computing the relative efficiency as a function of the mean and variance of cluster size and the intraclass correlation, which can be used for adjusting the sample size. The accuracy of this formula is checked against the numerical results and found to be quite good. It is concluded that the loss of efficiency due to variation of cluster sizes rarely exceeds 10 per cent and can be compensated by sampling 11 per cent more clusters.     

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。     

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.     

Sample size in cluster‐randomized trials with time to event as the primary endpoint

In cluster‐randomized trials, groups of individuals (clusters) are randomized to the treatments or interventions to be compared. In many of those trials, the primary objective is to compare the time for an event to occur between randomized groups, and the shared frailty model well fits clustered time‐to‐event data. Members of the same cluster tend to be more similar than members of different clusters, causing correlations. As correlations affect the power of a trial to detect intervention effects, the clustered design has to be considered in planning the sample size. In this publication, we derive a sample size formula for clustered time‐to‐event data with constant marginal baseline hazards and correlation within clusters induced by a shared frailty term. The sample size formula is easy to apply and can be interpreted as an extension of the widely used Schoenfeld's formula, accounting for the clustered design of the trial. Simulations confirm the validity of the formula and its use also for non‐constant marginal baseline hazards. Findings are illustrated on a cluster‐randomized trial investigating methods of disseminating quality improvement to addiction treatment centers in the USA. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Nonparametric inference for time‐dependent incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios

As the costs of medical care increase, more studies are evaluating cost in addition to effectiveness of treatments. Cost‐effectiveness analyses in randomized clinical trials have typically been conducted only at the end of follow‐up. However, cost‐effectiveness may change over time. We therefore propose a nonparametric estimator to assess the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio over time. We also derive the asymptotic variance of our estimator and present formulation of Fieller‐based simultaneous confidence bands. Simulation studies demonstrate the performance of our point estimators, variance estimators, and confidence bands. We also illustrate our methods using data from a randomized clinical trial, the second Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial. This trial studied the effects of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators on patients at high risk for cardiac arrhythmia. Results show that our estimator performs well in large samples, indicating promising future directions in the field of cost‐effectiveness. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Missing data in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: An incomplete journey

Cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted alongside randomised trials provide key evidence for informing healthcare decision making, but missing data pose substantive challenges. Recently, there have been a number of developments in methods and guidelines addressing missing data in trials. However, it is unclear whether these developments have permeated CEA practice. This paper critically reviews the extent of and methods used to address missing data in recently published trial‐based CEA. Issues of the Health Technology Assessment journal from 2013 to 2015 were searched. Fifty‐two eligible studies were identified. Missing data were very common; the median proportion of trial participants with complete cost‐effectiveness data was 63% (interquartile range: 47%–81%). The most common approach for the primary analysis was to restrict analysis to those with complete data (43%), followed by multiple imputation (30%). Half of the studies conducted some sort of sensitivity analyses, but only 2 (4%) considered possible departures from the missing‐at‐random assumption. Further improvements are needed to address missing data in cost‐effectiveness analyses conducted alongside randomised trials. These should focus on limiting the extent of missing data, choosing an appropriate method for the primary analysis that is valid under contextually plausible assumptions, and conducting sensitivity analyses to departures from the missing‐at‐random assumption.     

Sample size calculation for the one‐sample log‐rank test

An improved method of sample size calculation for the one‐sample log‐rank test is provided. The one‐sample log‐rank test may be the method of choice if the survival curve of a single treatment group is to be compared with that of a historic control. Such settings arise, for example, in clinical phase‐II trials if the response to a new treatment is measured by a survival endpoint. Present sample size formulas for the one‐sample log‐rank test are based on the number of events to be observed, that is, in order to achieve approximately a desired power for allocated significance level and effect the trial is stopped as soon as a certain critical number of events are reached. We propose a new stopping criterion to be followed. Both approaches are shown to be asymptotically equivalent. For small sample size, though, a simulation study indicates that the new criterion might be preferred when planning a corresponding trial. In our simulations, the trial is usually underpowered, and the aspired significance level is not exploited if the traditional stopping criterion based on the number of events is used, whereas a trial based on the new stopping criterion maintains power with the type‐I error rate still controlled. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Allowing for imprecision of the intracluster correlation coefficient in the design of cluster randomized trials

The sample size required for a cluster randomized trial depends on the magnitude of the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC). The usual sample size calculation makes no allowance for the fact that the ICC is not known precisely in advance. We develop methods which allow for the uncertainty in a previously observed ICC, using a variety of distributional assumptions. Distributions for the power are derived, reflecting this uncertainty. Further, the observed ICC in a future study will not equal its true value, and we consider the impact of this on power. We implement calculations within a Bayesian simulation approach, and provide one simplification that can be performed using simple simulation within spreadsheet software. In our examples, recognizing the uncertainty in a previous ICC estimate decreases expected power, especially when the power calculated naively from the ICC estimate is high. To protect against the possibility of low power, sample sizes may need to be very substantially increased. Recognizing the variability in the future observed ICC has little effect if prior uncertainty has already been taken into account. We show how our method can be extended to the case in which multiple prior ICC estimates are available. The methods presented in this paper can be used by applied researchers to protect against loss of power, or to choose a design which reduces the impact of uncertainty in the ICC.     

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.