Kahan Brennan C, Forbes Gordon, Ali Yunus, Jairath Vipul, Bremner Stephen, Harhay Michael O, Hooper Richard, Wright Neil, Eldridge Sandra M, Leyrat Clémence
Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner St, E1 2AB, London, UK.
Department of Medicine, Western University and London Health Sciences Network, London, ON, Canada.
Trials. 2016 Sep 6;17(1):438. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1571-2.
Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are commonly analysed using mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations (GEEs). However, these analyses do not always perform well with the small number of clusters typical of most CRTs. They can lead to increased risk of a type I error (finding a statistically significant treatment effect when it does not exist) if appropriate corrections are not used.
We conducted a small simulation study to evaluate the impact of using small-sample corrections for mixed-effects models or GEEs in CRTs with a small number of clusters. We then reanalysed data from TRIGGER, a CRT with six clusters, to determine the effect of using an inappropriate analysis method in practice. Finally, we reviewed 100 CRTs previously identified by a search on PubMed in order to assess whether trials were using appropriate methods of analysis. Trials were classified as at risk of an increased type I error rate if they did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, or if they had fewer than 40 clusters and performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate small-sample correction.
Our simulation study found that using mixed-effects models or GEEs without an appropriate correction led to inflated type I error rates, even for as many as 70 clusters. Conversely, using small-sample corrections provided correct type I error rates across all scenarios. Reanalysis of the TRIGGER trial found that inappropriate methods of analysis gave much smaller P values (P ≤ 0.01) than appropriate methods (P = 0.04-0.15). In our review, of the 99 trials that reported the number of clusters, 64 (65 %) were at risk of an increased type I error rate; 14 trials did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, and 50 trials with fewer than 40 clusters performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate correction.
CRTs with a small or medium number of clusters are at risk of an inflated type I error rate unless appropriate analysis methods are used. Investigators should consider using small-sample corrections with mixed-effects models or GEEs to ensure valid results.
整群随机试验(CRT)通常使用混合效应模型或广义估计方程(GEE)进行分析。然而,对于大多数CRT典型的少量整群,这些分析并不总是表现良好。如果不使用适当的校正,它们可能会导致I型错误(在不存在治疗效果时发现具有统计学意义的治疗效果)的风险增加。
我们进行了一项小型模拟研究,以评估在整群数量较少的CRT中对混合效应模型或GEE使用小样本校正的影响。然后,我们重新分析了来自TRIGGER(一项有六个整群的CRT)的数据,以确定在实际中使用不适当分析方法的效果。最后,我们回顾了之前通过在PubMed上搜索确定的100项CRT,以评估试验是否使用了适当的分析方法。如果试验未报告使用考虑整群因素的分析方法,或者整群数量少于40且进行个体水平分析而未报告使用适当的小样本校正,则将试验分类为I型错误率增加风险。
我们的模拟研究发现,即使对于多达70个整群,使用未进行适当校正的混合效应模型或GEE也会导致I型错误率膨胀。相反,在所有情况下使用小样本校正都能提供正确的I型错误率。对TRIGGER试验的重新分析发现,不适当的分析方法给出的P值(P≤0.01)比适当方法(P = 0.04 - 0.15)小得多。在我们的综述中,在报告了整群数量的99项试验中,64项(65%)存在I型错误率增加的风险;14项试验未报告使用考虑整群因素的分析方法,50项整群数量少于40的试验进行了个体水平分析而未报告使用适当的校正。
除非使用适当的分析方法,否则整群数量少或中等的CRT存在I型错误率膨胀的风险。研究者应考虑对混合效应模型或GEE使用小样本校正以确保结果有效。