Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38431550›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Power calculation for detecting interaction effect in cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: an important tool for disparity research.

Chen Yang, Asem Berkalieva, Madhu Mazumdar, Deukwoo Kwon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Chen YangDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Asem BerkalievaDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Madhu MazumdarDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Deukwoo KwonDivision of Clinical and Translational Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. deukwoo.kwon@uth.tmc.edu.

Funding

Consortium for Advancing Management and Prevention of Cancer in People with HIVUM1CA121947 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Joseph A. Sparano · 2015 to 2026
$253.7M
University of Southern CaliforniaU01CA121947 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI MITSUYASU, RONALD T. · 2006 to 2014
$54.7M
Conduits: Mount Sinai Health System Translational Science HubUL1TR004419 · NCATS · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Rosalind J Wright · 2022 to 2026
$46.4M
Convalescent Plasma to Limit Coronavirus Associated ComplicationsUL1TR003167 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI KARP, DANIEL D, MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2019 to 2023
$45.3M
THE TISCH CANCER INSTITUTE - CANCER CENTER SUPPORT GRANTP30CA196521 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Deanna L Benson · 2015 to 2026
$35.4M
Residing in the Community with Dementia at the End of Life: Understanding Hospice Use and Residential SettingP30AG028741 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI ORNA INTRATOR · 2010 to 2026
$21.9M
High-Dimensional Immune Monitoring of NCI-Supported Immunotherapy TrialsU24CA224319 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Sacha Gnjatic, Seunghee Kim-Schulze · 2017 to 2026
$21.5M
Unnecessary and Harmful Medication Use in Older Adults with DementiaP01AG066605 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI KENNETH E. COVINSKY, R. Sean Morrison · 2020 to 2026
$17.7M
PTEN and CancerR35CA220491 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI PARSONS, RAMON E · 2017 to 2023
$6.8M
Translating Scientific Evidence into Practice using Digital Medicine and Electronic Patient Reported OutcomesU01TR002997 · NCATS · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI ATREJA, ASHISH, RIZK, MAGED · 2020 to 2023
$4.7M
Machine Learning to Predict Mortality and Improve End-of-Life Outcomes among Minorities with Advanced CancerR56CA267957 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI SMITH, CARDINALE B · 2022 to 2022
$300k
NCATS NIH HHS U01 TR002997NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003167NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR003167NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR004419NCI NIH HHS P30 CA196521NCI NIH HHS P30CA196521-01NCI NIH HHS R35 CA220491NCI NIH HHS R56 CA267957NCI NIH HHS U01 CA121947NCI NIH HHS U24 CA224319NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA121947NIA NIH HHS P01 AG066605NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028741
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) design has become popular in healthcare research. It is an appealing alternative to traditional cluster randomized trials (CRTs) since the burden of logistical issues and ethical problems can be reduced. Several approaches for sample size determination for the overall treatment effect in the SW-CRT have been proposed. However, in certain situations we are interested in examining the heterogeneity in treatment effect (HTE) between groups instead. This is equivalent to testing the interaction effect. An important example includes the aim to reduce racial disparities through healthcare delivery interventions, where the focus is the interaction between the intervention and race. Sample size determination and power calculation for detecting an interaction effect between the intervention status variable and a key covariate in the SW-CRT study has not been proposed yet for binary outcomes.

methodsWe utilize the generalized estimating equation (GEE) method for detecting the heterogeneity in treatment effect (HTE). The variance of the estimated interaction effect is approximated based on the GEE method for the marginal models. The power is calculated based on the two-sided Wald test. The Kauermann and Carroll (KC) and the Mancl and DeRouen (MD) methods along with GEE (GEE-KC and GEE-MD) are considered as bias-correction methods.

resultsAmong three approaches, GEE has the largest simulated power and GEE-MD has the smallest simulated power. Given cluster size of 120, GEE has over 80% statistical power. When we have a balanced binary covariate (50%), simulated power increases compared to an unbalanced binary covariate (30%). With intermediate effect size of HTE, only cluster sizes of 100 and 120 have more than 80% power using GEE for both correlation structures. With large effect size of HTE, when cluster size is at least 60, all three approaches have more than 80% power. When we compare an increase in cluster size and increase in the number of clusters based on simulated power, the latter has a slight gain in power. When the cluster size changes from 20 to 40 with 20 clusters, power increases from 53.1% to 82.1% for GEE; 50.6% to 79.7% for GEE-KC; and 48.1% to 77.1% for GEE-MD. When the number of clusters changes from 20 to 40 with cluster size of 20, power increases from 53.1% to 82.1% for GEE; 50.6% to 81% for GEE-KC; and 48.1% to 79.8% for GEE-MD.

conclusionsWe propose three approaches for cluster size determination given the number of clusters for detecting the interaction effect in SW-CRT. GEE and GEE-KC have reasonable operating characteristics for both intermediate and large effect size of HTE.

Indexed as

Research DesignCluster AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeCluster randomized trialsGEEInteraction effectPower calculationStepped-wedge

Identifiers

PMID38431550
PMCPMC11323530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.