Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38093221›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2023

Analysing cluster randomised controlled trials using GLMM, GEE1, GEE2, and QIF: results from four case studies.

Bright C Offorha, Stephen J Walters, Richard M Jacques

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07555093 (A Randomized Controlled Trial in Lombok), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

NCT07555093 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Controlled Trial in Lombok: Assessing Factors Influencing Acceptance and Adherence to Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) Using Digital Tools

TypeinterventionalSponsorSummit Institute for Development, IndonesiaRan2026 to 2027Enrolled10,012ConditionsPregnancy, AdherenceArmsBottle pack, Blister pack, Standard Care, Digital care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Bright C OfforhaDivision of Population Health, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. bcofforha1@sheffield.ac.uk.
Stephen J WaltersDivision of Population Health, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Richard M JacquesDivision of Population Health, School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing four case studies, we aim to provide practical guidance and recommendations for the analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials.

methodsFour modelling approaches (Generalized Linear Mixed Models with parameters estimated by maximum likelihood/restricted maximum likelihood; Generalized Linear Models with parameters estimated by Generalized Estimating Equations (1st order or second order) and Quadratic Inference Function, for analysing correlated individual participant level outcomes in cluster randomised controlled trials were identified after we reviewed the literature. We systematically searched the online bibliography databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (via OVID), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and SCOPUS. We identified the above-mentioned four statistical analytical approaches and applied them to four case studies of cluster randomised controlled trials with the number of clusters ranging from 10 to 100, and individual participants ranging from 748 to 9,207. Results were obtained for both continuous and binary outcomes using R and SAS statistical packages.

resultsThe intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates for the case studies were less than 0.05 and are consistent with the observed ICC values commonly reported in primary care and community-based cluster randomised controlled trials. In most cases, the four methods produced similar results. However, in a few analyses, quadratic inference function produced different results compared to the generalized linear mixed model, first-order generalized estimating equations, and second-order generalized estimating equations, especially in trials with small to moderate numbers of clusters.

conclusionThis paper demonstrates the analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials with four modelling approaches. The results obtained were similar in most cases, however, for trials with few clusters we do recommend that the quadratic inference function should be used with caution, and where possible a small sample correction should be used. The generalisability of our results is limited to studies with similar features to our case studies, for example, studies with a similar-sized ICC. It is important to conduct simulation studies to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the four modelling approaches.

Indexed as

Research DesignCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationHumansLinear ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeCluster randomised controlled trialIntracluster correlation coefficientSASStatistical methodsStatistical models

Identifiers

PMID38093221
PMCPMC10717070

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.