Estimates of intra-cluster correlation coefficients from 2018 USA Medicare data to inform the design of cluster randomized trials in Alzheimer's and related dementias.
Humans
United States
Medicare
Alzheimer Disease
/ diagnosis
Aged
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Male
Female
Dementia
/ therapy
Aged, 80 and over
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Cluster Analysis
Research Design
Emergency Service, Hospital
/ statistics & numerical data
Sample Size
Cluster randomized trials
Interactive R shiny app
Intra-cluster correlation coefficient
Power
Sample size calculation
Treatment effect heterogeneity
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Oct 2024
30 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
13
03
2024
accepted:
16
08
2024
medline:
31
10
2024
pubmed:
31
10
2024
entrez:
31
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly important for evaluating interventions embedded in health care systems. An essential parameter in sample size calculation to detect both overall and heterogeneous treatment effects for CRTs is the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of both outcome and covariates of interest. However, obtaining advance estimates for the ICC can be challenging. When trial outcomes will be obtained from routinely collected data sources, there is an opportunity to obtain reliable ICC estimates in advance of the trial. Using USA national Medicare data, we estimated ICCs for a range of outcomes to inform the design of CRTs for people living with Alzheimer's and related dementias (ADRD). Data from 2018 Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries, specifically, 1,898,812 individuals (≥ 65 years) with diagnosis of ADRD within 3436 hospital service areas (treated as clusters) and 306 hospital referral regions (treated as fixed strata), were used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted ICC estimates for three outcomes: death, any hospitalizations, and any emergency department (ED) visits and three covariates: age, race and sex. We present both overall and stratum-specific ICC estimates. We illustrate their use in sample size calculations for overall treatment effects as well as detecting treatment effect heterogeneity. The unadjusted overall ICCs for death, hospitalizations, and ED visits were 0.001, 0.010, and 0.017 respectively. Stratum-specific ICCs varied widely across the 306 HRRs: median 0.001, 0.010 and 0.025 for death, hospitalizations, and ED visits respectively and 0.007, 0.001, and 0.080 for age, sex and race. An interactive R Shiny app is provided that allows users to retrieve estimates overlayed on a map of the USA. We presented both adjusted and unadjusted ICCs for outcomes as well as unadjusted ICCs for covariates of potential interest from population-level data in the USA and demonstrated how the estimates may be used in sample size calculations for CRTs in ADRD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly important for evaluating interventions embedded in health care systems. An essential parameter in sample size calculation to detect both overall and heterogeneous treatment effects for CRTs is the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of both outcome and covariates of interest. However, obtaining advance estimates for the ICC can be challenging. When trial outcomes will be obtained from routinely collected data sources, there is an opportunity to obtain reliable ICC estimates in advance of the trial. Using USA national Medicare data, we estimated ICCs for a range of outcomes to inform the design of CRTs for people living with Alzheimer's and related dementias (ADRD).
METHOD
METHODS
Data from 2018 Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries, specifically, 1,898,812 individuals (≥ 65 years) with diagnosis of ADRD within 3436 hospital service areas (treated as clusters) and 306 hospital referral regions (treated as fixed strata), were used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted ICC estimates for three outcomes: death, any hospitalizations, and any emergency department (ED) visits and three covariates: age, race and sex. We present both overall and stratum-specific ICC estimates. We illustrate their use in sample size calculations for overall treatment effects as well as detecting treatment effect heterogeneity.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The unadjusted overall ICCs for death, hospitalizations, and ED visits were 0.001, 0.010, and 0.017 respectively. Stratum-specific ICCs varied widely across the 306 HRRs: median 0.001, 0.010 and 0.025 for death, hospitalizations, and ED visits respectively and 0.007, 0.001, and 0.080 for age, sex and race. An interactive R Shiny app is provided that allows users to retrieve estimates overlayed on a map of the USA.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We presented both adjusted and unadjusted ICCs for outcomes as well as unadjusted ICCs for covariates of potential interest from population-level data in the USA and demonstrated how the estimates may be used in sample size calculations for CRTs in ADRD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39478608
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08404-2
pii: 10.1186/s13063-024-08404-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
732Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. National Institute on Aging, https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers . Accessed 9 Nov 2022.
2021 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17(3):327–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12328 .
Donner A. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold; 2000.
Donner A, Koval JJ. Design considerations in the estimation of intraclass correlation. Ann Hum Genet. 1982;46:271–7.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1982.tb00718.x
pubmed: 7125598
Ouyang Y, Xu L, Karim ME, et al. CRTpowerdist: an R package to calculate attained power and construct the power distribution for cross-sectional stepped-wedge and parallel cluster randomized trials. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2021;208:106255.
doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106255
pubmed: 34260969
Chen J, Zhou X, Li F, et al. swdpwr: a SAS macro and an R package for power calculations in stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022;213:106522.
doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106522
pubmed: 34818620
Hemming K, Kasza J, Hooper R, et al. A tutorial on sample size calculation for multiple-period cluster randomized parallel, cross-over and stepped-wedge trials using the Shiny CRT Calculator. Int J Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz237 . Epub ahead of print 22 February 2020.
Zhang Y, Preisser JS, Li F, et al. GEEMAEE: A SAS macro for the analysis of correlated outcomes based on GEE and finite-sample adjustments with application to cluster randomized trials. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2023;230:107362.
doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107362
pubmed: 36709555
pmcid: 10037297
Ouyang Y, Li F, Preisser JS, Taljaard M. Sample size calculators for planning stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: a review and comparison. Int J Epidemiol. 2022;51(6):2000–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyac123 .
Zhan D, Xu L, Ouyang Y, et al. Methods for dealing with unequal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0255389.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255389
pubmed: 34324593
pmcid: 8320970
Ouyang Y, Kulkarni MA, Protopopoff N, et al. Accounting for complex intracluster correlations in longitudinal cluster randomized trials: a case study in malaria vector control. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23:64.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01871-2
pubmed: 36932347
pmcid: 10021932
Kasza J, Bowden R, Ouyang Y, Taljaard M, Forbes AB. Does it decay? Obtaining decaying correlation parameter values from previously analysed cluster randomised trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2023;32(11):2123–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802231194753 .
Starks MA, Sanders GD, Coeytaux RR, et al. Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses in health-related cluster randomized trials: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0219894.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219894
pubmed: 31404063
pmcid: 6690528
Yang S, Li F, Starks MA, et al. Sample size requirements for detecting treatment effect heterogeneity in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2020;39:4218–37.
doi: 10.1002/sim.8721
pubmed: 32823372
pmcid: 7948251
Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, et al. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5661
pubmed: 22951546
Ivers NM, Taljaard M, Dixon S, et al. Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000–8. BMJ. 2011;343:d5886.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5886
pubmed: 21948873
pmcid: 3180203
Ouyang Y, Hemming K, Li F, et al. Estimating intra-cluster correlation coefficients for planning longitudinal cluster randomized trials: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2023:dyad062.
Taljaard M, Donner A, Villar J, et al. Intracluster correlation coefficients from the 2005 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health: implications for implementation research. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008;22:117–25.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00901.x
pubmed: 18298685
Thompson DM, Fernald DH, Mold JW. Intraclass correlation coefficients typical of cluster-randomized studies: estimates from the Robert Wood Johnson Prescription for Health projects. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10:235–40.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1347
pubmed: 22585888
pmcid: 3354973
Gulliford MC, Adams G, Ukoumunne OC, et al. Intraclass correlation coefficient and outcome prevalence are associated in clustered binary data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:246–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.012
pubmed: 15718113
Li F, Chen X, Tian Z, et al. Designing three-level cluster randomized trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity. Biostatistics 2022:kxac026.
Tong G, Esserman D, Li F. Accounting for unequal cluster sizes in designing cluster randomized trials to detect treatment effect heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2022;41:1376–96.
doi: 10.1002/sim.9283
pubmed: 34923655
Tong J, Li F, Harhay MO, et al. Accounting for expected attrition in the planning of cluster randomized trials for assessing treatment effect heterogeneity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23:85.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01887-8
pubmed: 37024809
pmcid: 10077680
Ryan MM, Esserman D, Li F. Maximin optimal cluster randomized designs for assessing treatment effect heterogeneity. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.09138 . Epub ahead of print 30 May 2023.
McCarthy EP, Chang C-H, Tilton N, et al. Validation of claims algorithms to identify Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2022;77:1261–71.
doi: 10.1093/gerona/glab373
pubmed: 34919686
Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. https://www.dartmouthatlas.org/ . Accessed 21 Mar 2023.
Hu Y, Wang F, Xierali IM. Automated delineation of hospital service areas and hospital referral regions by modularity optimization. Health Serv Res. 2018;53:236–55.
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12616
pubmed: 27861822
Wennberg JE, Cooper MM. Strategies and methods. In: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care in the United States: The Center for the Evaluative Clinical Science. Chicago: American Hospital Publishing, Inc.; 1996. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK585005/ . Accessed 14 Jul 2023.
Ridout MS, Demétrio CG, Firth D. Estimating intraclass correlation for binary data. Biometrics. 1999;55:137–48.
doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00137.x
pubmed: 11318148
Donner A. A review of inference procedures for the intraclass correlation coefficient in the one-way random effects model. Int Stat Rev. 1986;54:67–82.
doi: 10.2307/1403259
Preisser JS, Young ML, Zaccaro DJ, et al. An integrated population-averaged approach to the design, analysis and sample size determination of cluster-unit trials. Stat Med. 2003;22:1235–54.
doi: 10.1002/sim.1379
pubmed: 12687653
Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121–30.
doi: 10.2307/2531248
pubmed: 3719049
Gravenstein S, Davidson HE, Taljaard M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccination on numbers of US nursing home residents admitted to hospital: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5:738–46.
doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30235-7
pubmed: 28736045
Murray DM, Blistein JL. Methods to reduce the impact of intraclass correlation in group-randomized trials. Eval Rev. 2003;27:79–103.
doi: 10.1177/0193841X02239019
pubmed: 12568061
Rutterford C, Copas A, Eldridge S. Methods for sample size determination in cluster randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:1051–67.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv113
pubmed: 26174515
pmcid: 4521133
Brody AA, Barnes DE, Chodosh J, et al. Building a national program for pilot studies of embedded pragmatic clinical trials in dementia care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(Suppl 2):S14–20.
pubmed: 32589282
pmcid: 7393801
Preisser JS, Lu B, Qaqish BF. Finite sample adjustments in estimating equations and covariance estimators for intracluster correlations. Stat Med. 2008;27:5764–85.
doi: 10.1002/sim.3390
pubmed: 18680122
Nevins P, Ryan M, Davis-Plourde K, et al. Adherence to key recommendations for design and analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: a review of trials published 2016–2022. Clin Trials. 2023:17407745231208397.
Wu S, Crespi CM, Wong WK. Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:869–80.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.05.004
pubmed: 22627076
pmcid: 3426610
Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Constructing intervals for the intracluster correlation coefficient using Bayesian modelling, and application in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2006;25:1443–56.
doi: 10.1002/sim.2304
pubmed: 16220510
Chakraborty H, Moore J, Carlo WA, et al. A simulation based technique to estimate intracluster correlation for a binary variable. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30:71–80.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.07.008
pubmed: 18723124
Zou G, Donner A. Confidence interval estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary outcome data. Biometrics. 2004;60:807–11.
doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00232.x
pubmed: 15339305