The Method of Randomization for Cluster-Randomized Trials: Challenges of Including Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2016.05.01.1Keywords:
Experimental Design, Randomization, Cluster Randomized Trials, Multiple Chronic Conditions.Abstract
Cluster-randomized clinical trials (CRT) are trials in which the unit of randomization is not a participant but a group (e.g. healthcare systems or community centers). They are suitable when the intervention applies naturally to the cluster (e.g. healthcare policy); when lack of independence among participants may occur (e.g. nursing home hygiene); or when it is most ethical to apply an intervention to all within a group (e.g. school-level immunization). Because participants in the same cluster receive the same intervention, CRT may approximate clinical practice, and may produce generalizable findings. However, when not properly designed or interpreted, CRT may induce biased results.
CRT designs have features that add complexity to statistical estimation and inference. Chief among these is the cluster-level correlation in response measurements induced by the randomization. A critical consideration is the experimental unit of inference; often it is desirable to consider intervention effects at the level of the individual rather than the cluster. Finally, given that the number of clusters available may be limited, simple forms of randomization may not achieve balance between intervention and control arms at either the cluster- or participant-level.
In non-clustered clinical trials, balance of key factors may be easier to achieve because the sample can be homogenous by exclusion of participants with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). CRTs, which are often pragmatic, may eschew such restrictions. Failure to account for imbalance may induce bias and reducing validity. This article focuses on the complexities of randomization in the design of CRTs, such as the inclusion of patients with MCC, and imbalances in covariate factors across clusters.
References
Research C for DE and. Conducting Clinical Trials - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Initiative on Multiple Chronic Conditions. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ConductingClinicalTrials/ucm379576.htm. Accessed November 25, 2015.
FDA: Policies and Procedures for Proposed Trial Design Aimed at Multiple Chronic Conditions - Policy and Medicine. http://www.policymed.com/2014/02/fda-policies-and-procedures-for-proposed-trial-design-aimed-at-multiple-chronic-conditions.html. Accessed November 25, 2015.
Cornfield J. Randomization by group: a formal analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1978; 108(2): 100-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112592
Donner A, Klar N. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. 1 edition. Chichester England: Wiley 2010.
Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, CONSORT group. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004; 328(7441): 702-708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702
Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci 2011; 4(1): 8-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.82352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.82352
Hayes RJ, Moulton LH. Cluster Randomised Trials. 1 edition. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781584888178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781584888178
Ivers NM, Halperin IJ, Barnsley J, et al. Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: a methodological review. Trials 2012; 13: 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-120
Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Public Health 2004; 94(3): 416-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.416 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.416
Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1975; 31(1): 103-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529712 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529712
Wolfson M, Champion H, McCoy TP, et al. Impact of a randomized campus/community trial to prevent high-risk drinking among college students. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2012; 36(10): 1767-1778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01786.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01786.x
Signorini DF, Leung O, Simes RJ, Beller E, Gebski VJ, Callaghan T. Dynamic balanced randomization for clinical trials. Stat Med 1993; 12(24): 2343-2350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780122410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780122410
Moulton LH. Covariate-based constrained randomization of group-randomized trials. Clin Trials 2004; 1(3): 297-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1740774504cn024oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774504cn024oa
Chaudhary MA, Moulton LH. A SAS macro for constrained randomization of group-randomized designs. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2006; 83(3): 205-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2006.04.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2006.04.011
Hahn S, Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J. Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005; 5(1): 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-10
Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Taljaard M, et al. Ethical issues posed by cluster randomized trials in health research. Trials 2011; 12(1): 100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-100
Christie J, O’Halloran P, Stevenson M. Planning a cluster randomized controlled trial: methodological issues. Nurs Res 2009; 58(2): 128-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181900cb5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181900cb5
Farrin A, Russell I, Torgerson D, Underwood M, UK BEAM Trial Team. Differential recruitment in a cluster randomized trial in primary care: the experience of the UK back pain, exercise, active management and manipulation (UK BEAM) feasibility study. Clin Trials 2005; 2(2): 119-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn073oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn073oa
Eldridge SM, Ashby D, Feder GS, Rudnicka AR, Ukoumunne OC. Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care. Clin Trials 2004; 1(1): 80-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1740774504cn006rr DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774504cn006rr
Foster JM, Sawyer SM, Smith L, Reddel HK, Usherwood T. Barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment to a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care: lessons for future trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015; 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0012-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0012-3
Liddy C, Hogg W, Singh J, et al. A real-world stepped wedge cluster randomized trial of practice facilitation to improve cardiovascular care. Implement Sci 2015; 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0341-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0341-y
Brown AW, Li P, Bohan Brown MM, et al. Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: designing, analyzing, and reporting cluster randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2015; 102(2): 241-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.105072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.105072
Walleser S, Hill SR, Bero LA. Characteristics and quality of reporting of cluster randomized trials in children: reporting needs improvement. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(12): 1331-1340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.006
Ersek M, Polissar N, Du Pen A, Jablonski A, Herr K, Neradilek MB. Addressing methodological challenges in implementing the nursing home pain management algorithm randomized controlled trial. Clin Trials 2012; 9(5): 634-644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1740774512454243 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774512454243
Froud R, Eldridge S, Diaz Ordaz K, Marinho VCC, Donner A. Quality of cluster randomized controlled trials in oral health: a systematic review of reports published between 2005 and 2009. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 2012; 40: 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00660.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00660.x
Mbonye AK, Magnussen P, Lal S, et al. A Cluster Randomised Trial Introducing Rapid Diagnostic Tests into Registered Drug Shops in Uganda: Impact on Appropriate Treatment of Malaria. PLoS One 2015; 10(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129545 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129545
Taljaard M, McGowan J, Grimshaw JM, et al. Electronic search strategies to identify reports of cluster randomized trials in MEDLINE: low precision will improve with adherence to reporting standards. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-15
Wright N, Ivers N, Eldridge S, Taljaard M, Bremner S. A review of the use of covariates in cluster randomized trials uncovers marked discrepancies between guidance and practice. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(6): 603-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.006
Zhao W, Hill MD, Palesch Y. Minimal sufficient balance--a new strategy to balance baseline covariates and preserve randomness of treatment allocation. Stat Methods Med Res 2015; 24(6): 989-1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280212436447 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280212436447
Zhang L, Rosenberger WF. Response-Adaptive Randomization for Clinical Trials with Continuous Outcomes. Biometrics 2006; 62(2): 562-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00496.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00496.x
Bather JA. Randomized Allocation of Treatments in Sequential Experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 1981; 43(3): 265-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1981.tb01672.x
Thompson WR. On the Likelihood That One Unknown Probability Exceeds Another in View of the Evidence of Two Samples. Biometrika 1933; 25(3-4): 285-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/25.3-4.285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/25.3-4.285
Zelen M. Play the Winner Rule and the Controlled Clinical Trial. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1969; 64(325): 131-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2283724 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1969.10500959
Sobel, Weiss: Play-the-Winner Rule and Inverse Sampling for Selecting the Best of k > 3 Binomial Populations. Ann Math Stat 1972; 43(6): 1808-1826. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177690853
Berry DA, Fristedt B. Bandit problems: Sequential Allocation of Experiments (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability). Springer 1985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3711-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Denise Esserman, Heather G. Allore, Thomas G. Travison
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Policy for Journals/Articles with Open Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
Policy for Journals / Manuscript with Paid Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Publisher retain copyright .
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work .
