Author
Listed:
- Denghuang Zhan
- Liang Xu
- Yongdong Ouyang
- Richard Sawatzky
- Hubert Wong
Abstract
In a cluster-randomized trial (CRT), the number of participants enrolled often varies across clusters. This variation should be considered during both trial design and data analysis to ensure statistical performance goals are achieved. Most methodological literature on the CRT design has assumed equal cluster sizes. This scoping review focuses on methodology for unequal cluster size CRTs. EMBASE, Medline, Google Scholar, MathSciNet and Web of Science databases were searched to identify English-language articles reporting on methodology for unequal cluster size CRTs published until March 2021. We extracted data on the focus of the paper (power calculation, Type I error etc.), the type of CRT, the type and the range of parameter values investigated (number of clusters, mean cluster size, cluster size coefficient of variation, intra-cluster correlation coefficient, etc.), and the main conclusions. Seventy-nine of 5032 identified papers met the inclusion criteria. Papers primarily focused on the parallel-arm CRT (p-CRT, n = 60, 76%) and the stepped-wedge CRT (n = 14, 18%). Roughly 75% of the papers addressed trial design issues (sample size/power calculation) while 25% focused on analysis considerations (Type I error, bias, etc.). The ranges of parameter values explored varied substantially across different studies. Methods for accounting for unequal cluster sizes in the p-CRT have been investigated extensively for Gaussian and binary outcomes. Synthesizing the findings of these works is difficult as the magnitude of impact of the unequal cluster sizes varies substantially across the combinations and ranges of input parameters. Limited investigations have been done for other combinations of a CRT design by outcome type, particularly methodology involving binary outcomes—the most commonly used type of primary outcome in trials. The paucity of methodological papers outside of the p-CRT with Gaussian or binary outcomes highlights the need for further methodological development to fill the gaps.
Suggested Citation
Denghuang Zhan & Liang Xu & Yongdong Ouyang & Richard Sawatzky & Hubert Wong, 2021.
"Methods for dealing with unequal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials: A scoping review,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0255389
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255389
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Panter-Brick, Catherine & Eggerman, Jannik J. & Jefferies, Philip & Qtaishat, Lina & Dajani, Rana & Kumar, Praveen, 2024.
"Does volunteering impact refugee women's life satisfaction, empowerment, and wellbeing? Experimental evidence, local knowledge, and causal reasoning,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.