ReviewStatistics in medicine2023
Defining and estimating effects in cluster randomized trials: A methods comparison.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance changes in automated lesion detection under federated learning with sequential institution addition.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- A Causal Framework for Evaluating the Total Effect of Strategies Aiming to Expand Screening and to Improve Outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- CRT-Estimands Framework: consensus based extension of the ICH E9(R1) addendum for cluster randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
- Estimands and Doubly Robust Estimation for Cluster-Randomized Trials With Survival Outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Handling incomplete outcomes and covariates in cluster-randomized trials: doubly robust estimation, efficiency considerations, and sensitivity analysis.Biometrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Covariate adjustment in cluster randomised trials: a practical guide.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Causal inference in randomized trials with partial clustering.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Cluster Randomized Trials Designed to Support Generalizable Inferences.Evaluation review · 2024Article
- Blurring cluster randomized trials and observational studies: Two-Stage TMLE for subsampling, missingness, and few independent units.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Demystifying estimands in cluster-randomised trials.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024Article
- Adaptive selection of the optimal strategy to improve precision and power in randomized trials.Biometrics · 2024Article
- Model-robust and efficient covariate adjustment for cluster-randomized experiments.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2024Article
- Two-Stage TMLE to reduce bias and improve efficiency in cluster randomized trials.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.