Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials.
Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cct.2012.05.004
复制
发表时间：
2012-09
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Wong WK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wu S;Crespi CM;Wong WK
组内相关系数（ICC）是整群随机试验中的一个重要参数，它对统计功效有很大影响。我们比较了在具有二元结果的群集随机试验中估计ICC的常用方法，特别关注其在以社区为基础的癌症预防试验中的应用，主要结果是自我报告的癌症筛查。使用3个来自癌症筛查干预试验的具有不同数量和类型的聚类和聚类大小的真实的数据集，我们使用5种方法获得ICC的点估计和95%置信区间：方差分析估计，Fleiss-Cuzick估计，Pearson估计，基于广义估计方程的估计和来自随机截距logistic回归模型的估计。我们比较了整体样本和研究条件的ICC估计值。我们的研究结果表明，ICC估计从不同的方法可以有很大的不同，虽然置信区间一般重叠。在两项研究中，ICC因研究条件的不同而差异很大，这表明在试验中假设所有群集具有共同ICC的常见做法值得怀疑。一项模拟研究证实了错误地假设共同国际刑事法院的陷阱。研究者应考虑使用允许ICC因研究条件而异的样本量和分析方法。
The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a fundamental parameter of interest in cluster randomized trials as it can greatly affect statistical power. We compare common methods of estimating the ICC in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes, with a specific focus on their application to community-based cancer prevention trials with primary outcome of self-reported cancer screening. Using three real data sets from cancer screening intervention trials with different numbers and types of clusters and cluster sizes, we obtained point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the ICC using five methods: the analysis of variance estimator, the Fleiss-Cuzick estimator, the Pearson estimator, an estimator based on generalized estimating equations and an estimator from a random intercept logistic regression model. We compared estimates of the ICC for the overall sample and by study condition. Our results show that ICC estimates from different methods can be quite different, although confidence intervals generally overlap. The ICC varied substantially by study condition in two studies, suggesting that the common practice of assuming a common ICC across all clusters in the trial is questionable. A simulation study confirmed pitfalls of erroneously assuming a common ICC. Investigators should consider using sample size and analysis methods that allow the ICC to vary by study condition.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Altaye, M;Donner, A;Klar, N
通讯作者：
Klar, N
影响因子：
2
作者：
Eldridge, Sandra M.;Ukoumunne, Obioha C.;Carlin, John B.
通讯作者：
Carlin, John B.
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Glenn, Beth A.;Herrmann, Alison K.;Bastani, Roshan
通讯作者：
Bastani, Roshan
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
CAREY, V;ZEGER, SL;DIGGLE, P
通讯作者：
DIGGLE, P
影响因子：
2
作者：
Crespi, Catherine M.;Wong, Weng Kee;Mishra, Shiraz I.
通讯作者：
Mishra, Shiraz I.