Open AccessBook
Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research
Allan Donner,Neil Klar +1 more
- 05 Oct 2000
1.6K
TL;DR: In this article, the impact of cluster randomization on the design and analysis of a trial is discussed, and the most commonly used experimental designs are the completely randomized design, the matched-pair design and the stratified design.
read more
Abstract: Acknowledgements. Preface. 1. Introduction. 1.1 Why randomize clusters? 1.2 What is the impact of cluster randomization on the design and analysis of a trial? 1.3 Quantifying the effect of clustering. 1.4 Randomized versus non-randomized comparisons. 1.5 The unit of inference. 1.6 Terminology: what's in a name? 2. The historical development of cluster randomized trials. 2.1 Randomized trials before 1950. 2.2 Cluster randomized trials between 1950 and 1978. 2.3 Cluster randomized trails since 1978. 3. Issues arising in the planning of cluster randomization trials. 3.1 Selecting interventions. 3.2 Setting eligibility criteria. 3.3 Measuring subject response. 3.4 The most commonly used experimental designs. 3.5 Factorial and crossover designs. 3.6 Selecting an experimental design. 3.7 The importance of cluster-level replication. 3.8 Strategies for conducting successful trials. 4. The role of informed consent and other ethical issues. 4.1 The risk of harm. 4.2 Informed consent. 4.3 Subject blindness and informed consent. 4.4 Randomized consent designs. 4.5 Ethical issues and trial monitoring. 5. Sample size estimation for cluster randomization designs. 5.1 General issues of sample size estimation. 5.2 The completely randomized design. 5.3 The matched-pair design. 5.4 The stratified design. 5.5 Issues involving losses to follow-up. 5.6 Strategies for achieving desired power. 6. Analysis of binary outcomes. 6.1 Selecting the unit of analysis. 6.2 The completely randomized design. 6.3 The matched-pair design. 6.4 The stratified design. 7. Analysis of quantitative outcomes. 7.1 The completely randomized design. 7.2 The matched-pair design. 7.3 The stratified design. 8. Analysis of count, time to event and categorical outcomes. 8.1 Count and time to event data. 8.2 Categorical data. 9. Reporting of cluster randomization trials. 9.1 Reporting of study design. 9.2 Reporting of study results. References. Index.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
Using the half normal distribution to quantify covariate balance in cluster-randomized pragmatic trials.
Jin Huang,David L. Roth +1 more
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed an overall imbalance index (I) that is based on the mean of the absolute value of the standardized differences in means on the site characteristics and derived the theoretical distribution of I, then conduct simulation studies to examine its empirical properties under the varying covariate distributions and inter-correlations.
An Examination of an Interviewer-Respondent Matching Protocol in a Longitudinal CATI Study.
TL;DR: Strong evidence is found of the protocol effectively establishing close matches in matching participants in a national panel survey with interviewers employing computer-assisted telephone interviewing on selected sociodemographic features, including sex, age, and education.
4
Challenges and opportunities in conducting research in developing countries
M. Imran Khan,Zahid Memon,Zulfiqar A Bhutta +2 more
- 01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: This paper provides a framework for the researchers in both developing and developed nations to try to understand and develop research agenda and ideas that could not only address child health problems in developing countries but could also result in the progress of science benefitting the world at large.
4
•Dissertation
Implementation of Electronic Medical Records and Preventive Services: A Mixed Methods Study
Michelle Greiver
- 24 Aug 2011
TL;DR: There was no difference between the two groups: after adjustment, combined preventive services for the EMR group increased by 0.7% less than for the non-EMR group (p=0.55).
4