-
Highly Efficient Stepped Wedge Designs for Clusters of Unequal Size
Authors:
John N. S. Matthews
Abstract:
The Stepped Wedge Design (SWD) is a form of cluster randomized trial, usually comparing two treatments, which is divided into time periods and sequences, with clusters allocated to sequences. Typically all sequences start with the standard treatment and end with the new treatment, with the change happening at different times in the different sequences. The clusters will usually differ in size but…
▽ More
The Stepped Wedge Design (SWD) is a form of cluster randomized trial, usually comparing two treatments, which is divided into time periods and sequences, with clusters allocated to sequences. Typically all sequences start with the standard treatment and end with the new treatment, with the change happening at different times in the different sequences. The clusters will usually differ in size but this is overlooked in much of the existing literature. This paper considers the case when clusters have different sizes and determines how efficient designs can be found. The approach uses an approximation to the the variance of the treatment effect which is expressed in terms of the proportions of clusters and of individuals allocated to each sequence of the design. The roles of these sets of proportions in determining an efficient design are discussed and illustrated using two SWDs, one in the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and one in renal replacement therapy. Cluster-balanced designs, which allocate equal numbers of clusters to each sequence, are shown to have excellent statistical and practical properties; suggestions are made about the practical application of the results for these designs. The paper concentrates on the cross-sectional case, where subjects are measured once, but it is briefly indicated how the methods can be extended to the closed-cohort design.
△ Less
Submitted 3 September, 2019; v1 submitted 13 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
-
Inconsistent treatment estimates from mis-specified logistic regression analyses of randomized trials
Authors:
J. N. S. Matthews,
Nuri H. Badi
Abstract:
When the difference between treatments in a clinical trial is estimated by a difference in means, then it is well known that randomization ensures unbiassed estimation, even if no account is taken of important baseline covariates. However, when the treatment effect is assessed by other summaries, e.g. by an odds ratio if the outcome is binary, then bias can arise if some covariates are omitted, re…
▽ More
When the difference between treatments in a clinical trial is estimated by a difference in means, then it is well known that randomization ensures unbiassed estimation, even if no account is taken of important baseline covariates. However, when the treatment effect is assessed by other summaries, e.g. by an odds ratio if the outcome is binary, then bias can arise if some covariates are omitted, regardless of the use of randomization for treatment allocation or the size of the trial. We present accurate closed-form approximations for this asymptotic bias when important Normally distributed covariates are omitted from a logistic regression. We compare this approximation with ones in the literature and derive more convenient forms for some of these existing results. The expressions give insight into the form of the bias, which simulations show is usable for distributions other than the Normal. The key result applies even when there are additional binary covariates in the model.
△ Less
Submitted 21 July, 2014;
originally announced July 2014.
-
An optimal multi-period crossover design for an application in paediatric nephrology
Authors:
John N. S. Matthews
Abstract:
Crossover clinical trials can provide substantial benefits by eliminating inter-patient variation from treatment comparisons and by allowing multiple observations of each patient. They are particularly useful when sample sizes are necessarily small. These advantages proved particularly valuable in an assessment of clot prevention in children undergoing haemodialysis. Only small numbers of children…
▽ More
Crossover clinical trials can provide substantial benefits by eliminating inter-patient variation from treatment comparisons and by allowing multiple observations of each patient. They are particularly useful when sample sizes are necessarily small. These advantages proved particularly valuable in an assessment of clot prevention in children undergoing haemodialysis. Only small numbers of children are treated at any given time in any single unit, but each patient is obliged to attend two or three times each week, suggesting the use of a crossover trial with many periods. Standard crossover trials described in the literature a) typically have fewer than 10 periods and b) are based on a model of questionable applicability to this study. This paper describes the derivation of an optimal crossover trial with 30 periods which was used to compare the treatments using nine patients.
△ Less
Submitted 23 October, 2012;
originally announced October 2012.
