Cluster randomized controlled trials (cluster RCTs), also known as parallel-arm group-randomized trials, are trials in which the randomized units are groups of participants, as opposed to individual participants. These trials have largely been implemented to address broad public health issues, but with the growing interest in use of real-world data in the regulatory setting, this design may be increasingly considered for industry trials. The key difference between cluster RCTs and traditional RCTs is the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) that needs to be considered in cluster RCTs. In this article, we discuss some key practical considerations that are related to ICC in the design, conduct, analysis, and report stages of a cluster RCT. These key considerations related to ICC can lead to improvement in how we translate research findings from cluster RCTs into practices in the biopharmaceutical industry.
FordINorrieJ. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med2016; 375(5): 454–463.
2.
MurrayDMVarnellSPBlitsteinJL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am J Public Health2004; 94(3): 423–432.
3.
TurnerELLiFGallisJA, et al. Review of recent methodological developments in group-randomized trials: part 1 – design. Am J Public Health2017; 107(6): 907–915.
4.
TurnerELPragueMGallisJA, et al. Review of recent methodological developments in group-randomized trials: part 2 – analysis. Am J Public Health2017; 107(7): 1078–1086.
5.
CookAJDelongEMurrayDM, et al. Statistical lessons learned for designing cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trials from the NIH Health Care Systems Collaboratory Biostatistics and Design Core. Clin Trials2016; 13(5): 504–512.
6.
TorgersonDJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer?BMJ2001; 322(7282): 355–357.
7.
MurrayDMPalsSLGeorgeSM, et al. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: a review of current practices. Prev Med2018; 111: 241–247.
8.
SimJDawsonA. Informed consent and cluster-randomized trials. Am J Public Health2012; 102(3): 480–485.
9.
KillipSMahfoudZPearceK. What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Ann Fam Med2004; 2(3): 204–208.
10.
WittlederSAjenikokoABouwmanD, et al. Protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a technology-assisted health coaching intervention for weight management in primary care: the GEM (goals for eating and moving) study. Contemp Clin Trials2019; 83: 37–45.
11.
IslamNGeptsTLiefI, et al. Protocol for the CHORD project (community health outreach to reduce diabetes): a cluster-randomized community health worker trial to prevent diabetes. BMC Public Health2018; 18(1): 521.
12.
WittlederSSmithSWangB, et al. Peer-assisted lifestyle (PAL) intervention: a protocol of a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a health-coaching intervention delivered by veteran peers to improve obesity treatment in primary care. BMJ Open2021; 11(2): e043013.
LairdNMWareJH. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics1982; 38(4): 963–974.
15.
UkoumunneOCGullifordMCChinnS. A note on the use of the variance inflation factor for determining sample size in cluster randomized trials. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat2002; 51(4): 479–484.
16.
HemmingKGirlingAJSitchAJ, et al. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters. BMC Med Res Methodol2011; 11: 102.
17.
van BreukelenGJCandelMJ. Calculating sample sizes for cluster randomized trials: we can keep it simple and efficient!J Clin Epidemiol2012; 65(11): 1212–1218.
18.
DonnerAKlarN. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Public Health2004; 94(3): 416–422.
19.
TurnerRMThompsonSGSpiegelhalterDJ. Prior distributions for the intracluster correlation coefficient, based on multiple previous estimates, and their application in cluster randomized trials. Clin Trials2005; 2(2): 108–118.
20.
EfirdJ. Blocked randomization with randomly selected block sizes. Int J Environ Res Public Health2011; 8(1): 15–20.
21.
MorganKLRubinDB. Rerandomization to improve covariate balance in experiments. Ann Statist2012; 40(2): 1263–1282.
22.
RubinDB. For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Ann Appl Stat2008; 2(3): 808–840.
23.
AustinPC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res2011; 46(3): 399–424.
24.
StuartEA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci2010; 25(1): 1–21.
25.
LiFLokhnyginaYMurrayDM, et al. An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Stat Med2016; 35(10): 1565–1579.
26.
CampbellMKMollisonJSteenN, et al. Analysis of cluster randomized trials in primary care: a practical approach. Fam Pract2000; 17(2): 192–196.
27.
LittleRJRubinDB. Statistical analysis with missing data, vol. 793. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
28.
RubinDB. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc1996; 91(434): 473–489.
29.
FieroMHHuangSOrenE, et al. Statistical analysis and handling of missing data in cluster randomized trials: a systematic review. Trials2016; 17: 72.
30.
FitzmauriceGMLairdNMWareJH. Applied longitudinal analysis, vol. 998. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
31.
FitzmauriceGM. Overview of methods for analyzing cluster-correlated data. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health, 2005.
32.
TwiskJWR. Applied mixed model analysis: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 249.
33.
WestBTWelchKBGaleckiAT. Linear mixed models: a practical guide using statistical software. 2nd ed.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014, p. 442.
34.
FieroMHHsuC-HBellML. A pattern-mixture model approach for handling missing continuous outcome data in longitudinal cluster randomized trials. Stat Med2017; 36(26): 4094–4105.
