Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32033617›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

The mixed model for repeated measures for cluster randomized trials: a simulation study investigating bias and type I error with missing continuous data.

Melanie L Bell, Brooke A Rabe

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02804698 nacompletednot on this map

Tools And Practices To Decrease CVD And Complications In The Diabetic Population Of Mexico

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ArizonaRan2016 to 2020Enrolled518ConditionsDiabetes, Cardiovascular DiseaseArmsEducation intervention
NCT07334470 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The BRAVE Study: A Sensitivity Intervention With Nursing Students Using Simulation

TypeinterventionalSponsorVillanova UniversityRan2026 to 2028Enrolled368ConditionsWeight BiasArmsBRAVE, SOL: Standard Obesity Lecture
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Melanie L BellDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA. melaniebell@email.arizona.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4821-4094
Brooke A RabeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA.

Funding

VITAMIN AP30CA023074 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI Teri L Bankhead · 1985 to 2026
$110.2M
Tools and Practices to Decrease CVD and Complications in the Diabetic Population of MexicoR01HL125996 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI ROSALES, CECILIA BALLESTEROS · 2015 to 2019
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023074NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL125996NIH HHS 1R01HL125996-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCluster randomized trials (CRTs) are a design used to test interventions where individual randomization is not appropriate. The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) is a popular choice for individually randomized trials with longitudinal continuous outcomes. This model's appeal is due to avoidance of model misspecification and its unbiasedness for data missing completely at random or at random.

methodsWe extended the MMRM to cluster randomized trials by adding a random intercept for the cluster and undertook a simulation experiment to investigate statistical properties when data are missing at random. We simulated cluster randomized trial data where the outcome was continuous and measured at baseline and three post-intervention time points. We varied the number of clusters, the cluster size, the intra-cluster correlation, missingness and the data-generation models. We demonstrate the MMRM-CRT with an example of a cluster randomized trial on cardiovascular disease prevention among diabetics.

resultsWhen simulating a treatment effect at the final time point we found that estimates were unbiased when data were complete and when data were missing at random. Variance components were also largely unbiased. When simulating under the null, we found that type I error was largely nominal, although for a few specific cases it was as high as 0.081.

conclusionsAlthough there have been assertions that this model is inappropriate when there are more than two repeated measures on subjects, we found evidence to the contrary. We conclude that the MMRM for CRTs is a good analytic choice for cluster randomized trials with a continuous outcome measured longitudinally.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02804698.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignAdultBiasCardiovascular DiseasesCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalDiabetes ComplicationsDiabetes MellitusExerciseFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleCluster trialsDropoutGroup randomized trialsIntention-to-treatMissing dataVariance components

Identifiers

PMID32033617
PMCPMC7006144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.