Analysing cluster randomised controlled trials using GLMM, GEE1, GEE2, and QIF: results from four case studies

BACKGROUND

Using four case studies, we aim to provide practical guidance and recommendations for the analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

Four modelling approaches (Generalized Linear Mixed Models with parameters estimated by maximum likelihood/restricted maximum likelihood; Generalized Linear Models with parameters estimated by Generalized Estimating Equations (1st order or second order) and Quadratic Inference Function, for analysing correlated individual participant level outcomes in cluster randomised controlled trials were identified after we reviewed the literature. We systematically searched the online bibliography databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (via OVID), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and SCOPUS. We identified the above-mentioned four statistical analytical approaches and applied them to four case studies of cluster randomised controlled trials with the number of clusters ranging from 10 to 100, and individual participants ranging from 748 to 9,207. Results were obtained for both continuous and binary outcomes using R and SAS statistical packages.

RESULTS

The intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates for the case studies were less than 0.05 and are consistent with the observed ICC values commonly reported in primary care and community-based cluster randomised controlled trials. In most cases, the four methods produced similar results. However, in a few analyses, quadratic inference function produced different results compared to the generalized linear mixed model, first-order generalized estimating equations, and second-order generalized estimating equations, especially in trials with small to moderate numbers of clusters.

CONCLUSION

This paper demonstrates the analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials with four modelling approaches. The results obtained were similar in most cases, however, for trials with few clusters we do recommend that the quadratic inference function should be used with caution, and where possible a small sample correction should be used. The generalisability of our results is limited to studies with similar features to our case studies, for example, studies with a similar-sized ICC. It is important to conduct simulation studies to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the four modelling approaches.

Estimation in regret-regression using quadratic inference functions with ridge estimator

In this paper, we propose a new estimation method in estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes. The quadratic inference functions in myopic regret-regression (QIF-MRr) can be used to estimate the parameters of the mean response at each visit, conditional on previous states and actions. Singularity issues may arise during computation when estimating the parameters in ODTR using QIF-MRr due to multicollinearity. Hence, the ridge penalty was introduced in rQIF-MRr to tackle the issues. A simulation study and an application to anticoagulation dataset were conducted to investigate the model’s performance in parameter estimation. The results show that estimations using rQIF-MRr are more efficient than the QIF-MRr.

An evaluation of quadratic inference functions for estimating intervention effects in cluster randomized trials

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) usually randomize groups of individuals to interventions, and outcomes are typically measured at the individual level. Marginal intervention effects are frequently of interest in CRTs due to their population-averaged interpretations. Such effects are estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE), or a recent alternative called the quadratic inference function (QIF). However, the performance of QIF relative to GEE have not been extensively evaluated in the CRT context, especially when the marginal mean model includes additional covariates. Motivated by the HALI trial, we conduct simulation studies to compare the finite-sample operating characteristics of QIF and GEE. We demonstrate that QIF and GEE are equivalent under some conditions. When the marginal mean model includes individual-level covariates, QIF shows an efficiency improvement over GEE with overall larger power, but its test size may be more liberal than GEE and GEE achieves better coverage than QIF. The test size inflation may not by fully addressed from using finite-sample bias corrections. The estimates of QIF tend to be closer to GEE in the HALI data, although the former presents a small standard error. Overall, we confirm that the QIF approach generally has potentially better efficiency than GEE in our simulation studies but might be more cautiously used as a viable approach for the analysis of CRTs. More research is needed, however, to address the finite-sample bias in the variance estimation of the QIF to better control its test size.