ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2020
An evaluation of quadratic inference functions for estimating intervention effects in cluster randomized trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysing cluster randomised controlled trials using GLMM, GEE1, GEE2, and QIF: results from four case studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Bayesian generalized method of moments applied to pseudo-observations in survival analysis.Lifetime data analysis · 2025Article
- Designing individually randomized group treatment trials with repeated outcome measurements using generalized estimating equations.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Power considerations for generalized estimating equations analyses of four-level cluster randomized trials.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
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.