Search

Introduction: Clinical trial designs based on the assumption of independent observations are well established. Clustered clinical trial designs, where all observational units belong to a cluster and outcomes within clusters are expected to be correlated, have also received considerable attention. However, many clinical trials involve partially clustered data, where only some observational units belong to a cluster. Examples of such trials occur in neonatology, where participants include infants from both singleton and multiple births, and ophthalmology, where one or two eyes per participant may need treatment. Partial clustering can also arise in trials of group-based treatments (e.g. group education or counselling sessions) or treatments administered individually by a discrete number of health care professionals (e.g. surgeons or physical therapists), when this is compared to an unclustered control arm. Trials involving partially clustered data have received limited attention in the literature and the current lack of standardised terminology may be hampering the development and dissemination of methods for designing and analysing these trials. Methods and examples: In this article, we present an overarching definition of partially clustered trials, bringing together several existing trial designs including those for group-based treatments, clustering due to facilitator effects and the re-randomisation design. We define and describe four types of partially clustered trial designs, characterised by whether the clustering occurs pre-randomisation or post-randomisation and, in the case of pre-randomisation clustering, by the method of randomisation that is used for the clustered observations (individual randomisation, cluster randomisation or balanced randomisation within clusters). Real life examples are provided to highlight the occurrence of partially clustered trials across a variety of fields. To assess how partially clustered trials are currently reported, we review published reports of partially clustered trials. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that the description of these trials is often incomplete and the terminology used to describe the trial designs is inconsistent, restricting the ability to identify these trials in the literature. By adopting the definitions and terminology presented in this article, the reporting of partially clustered trials can be substantially improved, and we present several recommendations for reporting these trial designs in practice. Greater awareness of partially clustered trials will facilitate more methodological research into their design and analysis, ultimately improving the quality of these trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background In individually randomised trials we might expect interventions delivered in groups or by care providers to result in clustering of outcomes for participants treated in the same group or by the same care provider. In partially nested randomised controlled trials (pnRCTs) this clustering only occurs in one trial arm, commonly the intervention arm. It is important to measure and account for between-cluster variability in trial design and analysis. We compare analysis approaches for pnRCTs with continuous outcomes, investigating the impact on statistical inference of cluster sizes, coding of the non-clustered arm, intracluster correlation coefficient (ICCs), and differential variance between intervention and control arm, and provide recommendations for analysis. Methods We performed a simulation study assessing the performance of six analysis approaches for a two-arm pnRCT with a continuous outcome. These include: linear regression model; fully clustered mixed-effects model with singleton clusters in control arm; fully clustered mixed-effects model with one large cluster in control arm; fully clustered mixed-effects model with pseudo clusters in control arm; partially nested homoscedastic mixed effects model, and partially nested heteroscedastic mixed effects model. We varied the cluster size, number of clusters, ICC, and individual variance between the two trial arms. Results All models provided unbiased intervention effect estimates. In the partially nested mixed-effects models, methods for classifying the non-clustered control arm had negligible impact. Failure to account for even small ICCs resulted in inflated Type I error rates and over-coverage of confidence intervals. Fully clustered mixed effects models provided poor control of the Type I error rates and biased ICC estimates. The heteroscedastic partially nested mixed-effects model maintained relatively good control of Type I error rates, unbiased ICC estimation, and did not noticeably reduce power even with homoscedastic individual variances across arms. Conclusions In general, we recommend the use of a heteroscedastic partially nested mixed-effects model, which models the clustering in only one arm, for continuous outcomes similar to those generated under the scenarios of our simulations study. However, with few clusters (3–6), small cluster sizes (5–10), and small ICC (≤0.05) this model underestimates Type I error rates and there is no optimal model.