ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
On the analysis of two-phase designs in cluster-correlated data settings.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal sampling allocation for outcome-dependent designs in cluster-correlated data settings.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
- Small-sample inference for cluster-based outcome-dependent sampling schemes in resource-limited settings: Investigating low birthweight in Rwanda.Biometrics · 2022Article
- Sampling strategies to evaluate the prognostic value of a new biomarker on a time-to-event end-point.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Using Big Data to Estimate Dementia Prevalence in New Zealand: Protocol for an Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In public health research, information that is readily available may be insufficient to address the primary question(s) of interest. One cost-efficient way forward, especially in resource-limited settings, is to conduct a two-phase study in which the population is initially stratified, at phase I, by the outcome and/or some categorical risk factor(s). At phase II detailed covariate data is ascertained on a subsample within each phase I strata. While analysis methods for two-phase designs are well established, they have focused exclusively on settings in which participants are assumed to be independent. As such, when participants are naturally clustered (eg, patients within clinics) these methods may yield invalid inference. To address this, we develop a novel analysis approach based on inverse-probability weighting that permits researchers to specify some working covariance structure and appropriately accounts for the sampling design and ensures valid inference via a robust sandwich estimator for which a closed-form expression is provided. To enhance statistical efficiency, we propose a calibrated inverse-probability weighting estimator that makes use of information available at phase I but not used in the design. In addition to describing the technique, practical guidance is provided for the cluster-correlated data settings that we consider. A comprehensive simulation study is conducted to evaluate small-sample operating characteristics, including the impact of using naïve methods that ignore correlation due to clustering, as well as to investigate design considerations. Finally, the methods are illustrated using data from a one-time survey of the national antiretroviral treatment program in Malawi.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.