Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37308115›Full record

ReviewStatistics in medicine2023

Defining and estimating effects in cluster randomized trials: A methods comparison.

Alejandra Benitez, Maya L Petersen, Mark J van der Laan, Nicole Santos, Elizabeth Butrick, Dilys Walker, Rakesh Ghosh, Phelgona Otieno, Peter Waiswa, Laura B Balzer

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Demystifying estimands in cluster-randomised trials.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Alejandra BenitezGenentech Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4826-3611
Maya L PetersenSchool of Public Health, Biostatistics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Mark J van der LaanSchool of Public Health, Biostatistics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Nicole SantosInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Elizabeth ButrickInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Dilys WalkerInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Rakesh GhoshInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Phelgona OtienoCenter for Clinical Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Peter WaiswaCentre of Excellence for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Laura B BalzerSchool of Public Health, Biostatistics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USKenya Medical Research Institute · KEMakerere University · UG

Funding

Leadership and Operations Center (LOC), AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG); LOC 1/UM1AI068636 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Joseph J Eron, RAJESH T GANDHI · 2011 to 2026
$1073.1M
A Multisectoral Strategy to Address Persistent Drivers of the HIV Epidemic in East AfricaU01AI150510 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HAVLIR, DIANE V, KAMYA, MOSES ROBERT · 2020 to 2025
$23.4M
Targeted Learning using adaptive designs for HIV Epidemic control in East AfricaR01AI074345 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI PETERSEN, MAYA LIV, VANDERLAAN, MARK J · 2007 to 2023
$6.6M
Simplified Isoniazid Preventive Therapy (SPIRIT) Strategy to Reduce TB BurdenR01AI125000 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HAVLIR, DIANE V · 2017 to 2022
$3.9M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI074345NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI125000NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI150510NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068636NIH HHS R01AI074345NIH HHS R01AI125000NIH HHS U01AI150510NIH HHS UM1AI068636
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across research disciplines, cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are commonly implemented to evaluate interventions delivered to groups of participants, such as communities and clinics. Despite advances in the design and analysis of CRTs, several challenges remain. First, there are many possible ways to specify the causal effect of interest (eg, at the individual-level or at the cluster-level). Second, the theoretical and practical performance of common methods for CRT analysis remain poorly understood. Here, we present a general framework to formally define an array of causal effects in terms of summary measures of counterfactual outcomes. Next, we provide a comprehensive overview of CRT estimators, including the t-test, generalized estimating equations (GEE), augmented-GEE, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). Using finite sample simulations, we illustrate the practical performance of these estimators for different causal effects and when, as commonly occurs, there are limited numbers of clusters of different sizes. Finally, our application to data from the Preterm Birth Initiative (PTBi) study demonstrates the real-world impact of varying cluster sizes and targeting effects at the cluster-level or at the individual-level. Specifically, the relative effect of the PTBi intervention was 0.81 at the cluster-level, corresponding to a 19% reduction in outcome incidence, and was 0.66 at the individual-level, corresponding to a 34% reduction in outcome risk. Given its flexibility to estimate a variety of user-specified effects and ability to adaptively adjust for covariates for precision gains while maintaining Type-I error control, we conclude TMLE is a promising tool for CRT analysis.

Indexed as

Premature BirthCausalityCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample Sizeclustered datacluster randomized trialsdata-adaptive adjustmentgroup randomized trialsHierarchical datatargeted maximum likelihood estimation

Identifiers

PMID37308115
PMCPMC10898620
OpenAlexW4380363670

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.