A commonly cited purpose for conducting a meta-analysis of randomized trials is to increase the statistical power for detecting the effect of an intervention on a specified set of endpoints. At the same time, it also has been noted by several authors that many large-scale cluster randomization trials have not had the power to detect small or even moderate effect sizes. The loss of efficiency associated with cluster randomization relative to individual randomization, and the frequent failure of investigators to take this loss of efficiency into account at the planning stage of a trial, undoubtedly contributes to this problem. In this article, the authors present an approach that may be used to estimate the power of a planned meta-analysis that includes trials that are cluster randomized. Two examples are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armitage, P., & Berry, G. (1994). Statistical methods in medical research (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific.
2.
Beaton, G. H., Martorell, R., Aronson, K. J., Edmonston, B., McCabe, G., Ross, A. C., & Harvey, B. (Eds.). (1993). Effectiveness of vitamin A supplementation in the control of young child morbidity and mortality in developing countries. The ACC/SCN State-of-the-Art Series Nutrition Policy (Discussion Paper No. 13). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: International Nutrition Program, University of Toronto.
3.
Binstock, M. A., & Wolde-Tsadik, G. (1995). Alternative prenatal care. Impact of reduced visit frequency, focused visits and continuity of care. Journal of the Reproductive Medicine, 40, 507-512.
4.
Carroli, G., Villar, J., Piaggio, G., Khan-Neelofur, D., Gülmezoglu, M., Mugford, M., et al.for the WHO Antenatal Care Trial Research Group. (2001). WHO systematic review of randomized controlled trials of routine antenatal care. Lancet, 357, 1565-1570.
5.
Diehr, P., Martin, D. C., Koepsell, T., & Cheadle, A. (1995). Breaking the matches in a paired t-test for community interventions when the number of pairs is small. Statistics in Medicine, 14, 1491-1504.
6.
Donner, A. (1998). Some aspects of the design and analysis of cluster randomization trials. Applied Statistics, 47, 95-114.
7.
Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold Publishing.
8.
Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2002). Issues in the meta-analyses of cluster randomization trials. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 2971-2980.
9.
Donner, A., Piaggio, G., & Villar, J. (2001). Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of cluster randomization trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10, 325-338.
10.
Duan, N., Fox, S. A., Derose, K. P., & Carson, S. (2000). Maintaining mammography adherence through telephone counseling in a church-based trial. American Journal of Public Health, 90(9), 1468-1471.
11.
Fishbein, M. (1996). Great expectations, or do we ask too much from community-level interventions? [Editorial]. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1075-1076.
12.
Gail, M. H., Byar, D. P., Pechacek, T. F., & Corle, D. K. (1992). Aspects of statistical design for the community intervention trial for smoking cessation (COMMIT). Controlled Clinical Trials, 13, 6-21.
13.
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001). The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6(3), 203-207.
14.
Hoeing, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). Statistical practice. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19-24.
15.
Klar, N., & Donner, A. (1997). The merits of matching in community intervention trials. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 1753-1764.
16.
Koch, A., & Röhmel, J. (2001). Why are some meta-analyses more credible than others? Drug Information Journal, 35, 1019-1030.
17.
Liang, K. T., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13-22.
18.
Munjanja, S. P., Lindmark, G., & Nystrom, L. (1996). Randomized controlled trial of a reduced-visits programme of antenatal care in Harare, Zimbabwe. Lancet, 348, 364-369.
19.
Martin, D. C., Diehr, P., Perrin, E. B., & Koepsell, T. D. (1993). The effect of matching on the power of randomized community intervention studies. Statistics in Medicine, 12, 329-338.
20.
McDuffie, R. S., Beck, R., Bischoff, K., Cross, J., & Orleans, M. (1996). Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 847-851.
21.
Rao, J.N.K., & Scott, A. J. (1992). A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics, 48, 577-585.
22.
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22-53.
23.
Sikorski, J., Wilson, J., Clement, S., Das, S., & Smeeton, N. (1996). A randomised controlled trial comparing two schedules of antenatal visits: The antenatal care project. British Medical Journal, 312, 546-553.
24.
Susser, M. (1995). The tribulations of trials—Intervention in communities [Editorial]. American Journal of Public Health, 85(2), 156-158.
25.
Villar, J., Ba'aqeel, H., Piaggio, G., Lumbiganon, P., Belizán, J. M., Farnot, U., et al.for the WHO Antenatal Trial Research Group. (2001). The evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care: The WHO antenatal care randomized controlled trial. Lancet, 357, 1151-1164.
26.
Woolson, R. F., Bean, J. A., & Rojas, P. B. (1986). Sample size for case-control studies using Cochran's statistic. Biometrics, 42, 927-932.
