Planning a cluster randomized trial with unequal cluster sizes: practical issues involving continuous outcomes

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomization design is increasingly used for the evaluation of health-care, screeening or educational interventions. At the planning stage, sample size calculations usually consider an average cluster size without taking into account any potential imbalance in cluster size. However, there may exist high discrepancies in cluster sizes. METHODS: We performed simulations to study the impact of an imbalance in cluster size on power. We determined by simulations to which extent four methods proposed to adapt the sample size calculations to a pre-specified imbalance in cluster size could lead to adequately powered trials. RESULTS: We showed that an imbalance in cluster size can be of high influence on the power in the case of severe imbalance, particularly if the number of clusters is low and/or the intraclass correlation coefficient is high. In the case of a severe imbalance, our simulations confirmed that the minimum variance weights correction of the variation inflaction factor (VIF) used in the sample size calculations has the best properties. CONCLUSION: Publication of cluster sizes is important to assess the real power of the trial which was conducted and to help designing future trials. We derived an adaptation of the VIF from the minimum variance weights correction to be used in case the imbalance can be a priori formulated such as "a proportion (γ) of clusters actually recruit a proportion (τ) of subjects to be included (γ ≤ τ)"

Methods of Blinding in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Pharmacologic Treatments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Blinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: This review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmalogic trials

Reporting Methods of Blinding in Randomized Trials Assessing Nonpharmacological Treatments

BACKGROUND: Blinding is a cornerstone of treatment evaluation. Blinding is more difficult to obtain in trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment and frequently relies on “creative” (nonstandard) methods. The purpose of this study was to systematically describe the strategies used to obtain blinding in a sample of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatment. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We systematically searched in Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing nonpharmacological treatment with blinding, published during 2004 in high-impact-factor journals. Data were extracted using a standardized extraction form. We identified 145 articles, with the method of blinding described in 123 of the reports. Methods of blinding of participants and/or health care providers and/or other caregivers concerned mainly use of sham procedures such as simulation of surgical procedures, similar attention-control interventions, or a placebo with a different mode of administration for rehabilitation or psychotherapy. Trials assessing devices reported various placebo interventions such as use of sham prosthesis, identical apparatus (e.g., identical but inactivated machine or use of activated machine with a barrier to block the treatment), or simulation of using a device. Blinding participants to the study hypothesis was also an important method of blinding. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors relied mainly on centralized assessment of paraclinical examinations, clinical examinations (i.e., use of video, audiotape, photography), or adjudications of clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: This study classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could overcome some barriers of blinding in clinical trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment, and provides information for readers assessing the quality of results of such trials

A priori postulated and real power in cluster randomized trials: mind the gap

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomization design is increasingly used for the evaluation of health-care, screening or educational interventions. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) defines the clustering effect and be specified during planning. The aim of this work is to study the influence of the ICC on power in cluster randomized trials. METHODS: Power contour graphs were drawn to illustrate the loss in power induced by an underestimation of the ICC when planning trials. We also derived the maximum achievable power given a specified ICC. RESULTS: The magnitude of the ICC can have a major impact on power, and with low numbers of clusters, 80% power may not be achievable. CONCLUSION: Underestimating the ICC during planning cluster randomized trials can lead to a seriously underpowered trial. Publication of a priori postulated and a posteriori estimated ICCs is necessary for a more objective reading: negative trial results may be the consequence of a loss of power due to a mis-specification of the ICC

Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain.METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach. Cancer 2016;122:826-39. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.</p

An Efficient Strategy for Evaluating New Non-invasive Screening Tests for Colorectal Cancer: The Guiding Principles

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test\u27s ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states ( CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles

Objective: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. Design: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. Results: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test’s ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. Conclusion: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact