Abstract
Abstract
Background
Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are a design used to test interventions where individual randomization is not appropriate. The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) is a popular choice for individually randomized trials with longitudinal continuous outcomes. This model’s appeal is due to avoidance of model misspecification and its unbiasedness for data missing completely at random or at random.
Methods
We extended the MMRM to cluster randomized trials by adding a random intercept for the cluster and undertook a simulation experiment to investigate statistical properties when data are missing at random. We simulated cluster randomized trial data where the outcome was continuous and measured at baseline and three post-intervention time points. We varied the number of clusters, the cluster size, the intra-cluster correlation, missingness and the data-generation models. We demonstrate the MMRM-CRT with an example of a cluster randomized trial on cardiovascular disease prevention among diabetics.
Results
When simulating a treatment effect at the final time point we found that estimates were unbiased when data were complete and when data were missing at random. Variance components were also largely unbiased. When simulating under the null, we found that type I error was largely nominal, although for a few specific cases it was as high as 0.081.
Conclusions
Although there have been assertions that this model is inappropriate when there are more than two repeated measures on subjects, we found evidence to the contrary. We conclude that the MMRM for CRTs is a good analytic choice for cluster randomized trials with a continuous outcome measured longitudinally.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02804698.
Funder
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference40 articles.
1. Hayes RJ, Moulton LH. Cluster randomised trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton; 2009.
2. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
3. Sabo S, Denman Champion C, Bell ML, et al. Meta salud diabetes study protocol: a cluster-randomised trial to reduce cardiovascular risk among a diabetic population of Mexico. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020762. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020762.
4. Mallinckrodt CH, Kaiser CJ, Watkin JG, et al. Type 1 error rates from likelihood-based repeated measures analyses of incomplete longitudinal data. Pharm Stat. 2004;3:71–186.
5. Mallinckrodt CH, Lane PW, Schnell D, et al. Recommendations for the primary analysis of continuous endpoints in longitudinal clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2008;42:303–19.
Cited by
38 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献