Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37589088›Full record

Trial reportStatistical methods in medical research2023

Does it decay? Obtaining decaying correlation parameter values from previously analysed cluster randomised trials.

Jessica Kasza, Rhys Bowden, Yongdong Ouyang, Monica Taljaard, Andrew B Forbes

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Statistical methods in medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of injury prevention interventions using the stepped wedge cluster randomised trial design: key considerations.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Sample size requirements and intra-cluster correlations for stepped wedge cluster randomised trials in intensive care medicine: A practical guide.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Jessica KaszaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8940-0136
Rhys BowdenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9880-0206
Yongdong OuyangClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8692-2991
Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Andrew B ForbesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A frequently applied assumption in the analysis of data from cluster randomised trials is that the outcomes from all participants within a cluster are equally correlated. That is, the intracluster correlation, which describes the degree of dependence between outcomes from participants in the same cluster, is the same for each pair of participants in a cluster. However, recent work has discussed the importance of allowing for this correlation to decay as the time between the measurement of participants in a cluster increases. Incorrect omission of such a decay can lead to under-powered studies, and confidence intervals for estimated treatment effects can be too narrow or too wide, depending on the characteristics of the design. When planning studies, researchers often rely on previously reported analyses of trials to inform their choice of intracluster correlation. However, most reported analyses of clustered data do not incorporate a correlation decay. Thus, often all that is available are estimates of intracluster correlations obtained under the potentially incorrect assumption of no decay. In this article, we show that it is possible to use intracluster correlation values obtained from models that incorrectly omit a decay to inform plausible choices of decaying correlations. Our focus is on intracluster correlation estimates for continuous outcomes obtained by fitting linear mixed models with exchangeable or block-exchangeable correlation structures. We describe how plausible values for decaying correlations may be obtained given these estimated intracluster correlations. An online app is presented that allows users to obtain plausible values of the decay, which can be used at the trial planning stage to assess the sensitivity of sample size and power calculations to decaying correlation structures.

Indexed as

Research DesignCluster AnalysisHumansSample SizeTime FactorsCluster autocorrelationhierarchical modelsintracluster correlationsample size calculationstepped wedgewithin-cluster correlation structure

Identifiers

PMID37589088
PMCPMC10683336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.