Flynn Terry N, Peters Tim J
MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Nov 18;4(1):33. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-33.
This work has investigated under what conditions confidence intervals around the differences in mean costs from a cluster RCT are suitable for estimation using a commonly used cluster-adjusted bootstrap in preference to methods that utilise the Huber-White robust estimator of variance. The bootstrap's main advantage is in dealing with skewed data, which often characterise patient costs. However, it is insufficiently well recognised that one method of adjusting the bootstrap to deal with clustered data is only valid in large samples. In particular, the requirement that the number of clusters randomised should be large would not be satisfied in many cluster RCTs performed to date.
The performances of confidence intervals for simple differences in mean costs utilising a robust (cluster-adjusted) standard error and from two cluster-adjusted bootstrap procedures were compared in terms of confidence interval coverage in a large number of simulations. Parameters varied included the intracluster correlation coefficient, the sample size and the distributions used to generate the data.
The bootstrap's advantage in dealing with skewed data was found to be outweighed by its poor confidence interval coverage when the number of clusters was at the level frequently found in cluster RCTs in practice. Simulations showed that confidence intervals based on robust methods of standard error estimation achieved coverage rates between 93.5% and 94.8% for a 95% nominal level whereas those for the bootstrap ranged between 86.4% and 93.8%.
In general, 24 clusters per treatment arm is probably the minimum number for which one would even begin to consider the bootstrap in preference to traditional robust methods, for the parameter combinations investigated here. At least this number of clusters and extremely skewed data would be necessary for the bootstrap to be considered in favour of the robust method. There is a need for further investigation of more complex bootstrap procedures if economic data from cluster RCTs are to be analysed appropriately.
本研究探讨了在何种条件下,群组随机对照试验(cluster RCT)中平均成本差异的置信区间适合使用常用的群组调整自助法(cluster-adjusted bootstrap)进行估计,而非使用基于稳健方差估计的方法(如Huber-White稳健估计量)。自助法的主要优势在于处理偏态数据,而患者成本数据往往具有这一特征。然而,人们尚未充分认识到,一种调整自助法以处理聚类数据的方法仅在大样本中有效。特别是,迄今为止进行的许多群组随机对照试验都无法满足随机分组的群组数量需足够多这一要求。
在大量模拟中,比较了使用稳健(群组调整)标准误以及两种群组调整自助法得到的平均成本简单差异的置信区间在区间覆盖方面的表现。变化的参数包括组内相关系数、样本量以及用于生成数据的分布。
当群组数量处于实际群组随机对照试验中常见的水平时,研究发现自助法在处理偏态数据方面的优势被其较差的置信区间覆盖情况所抵消。模拟显示,基于稳健标准误估计方法的置信区间在名义水平为95%时的覆盖率在93.5%至94.8%之间,而自助法的覆盖率则在86.4%至93.8%之间。
总体而言,对于此处研究的参数组合,每个治疗组至少24个群组可能是人们开始考虑使用自助法而非传统稳健方法的最小群组数量。至少需要这么多群组以及极度偏态的数据,才会考虑使用自助法而非稳健方法。如果要对群组随机对照试验的经济数据进行恰当分析,有必要进一步研究更复杂的自助法程序。