Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41541796›Full record

ArticleStatistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics2026

On the mixed-model analysis of covariance in cluster-randomized trials.

Bingkai Wang, Michael O Harhay, Jiaqi Tong, Dylan S Small, Tim P Morris, Fan Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Demystifying estimands in cluster-randomised trials.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Bingkai WangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan.
Michael O HarhayDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania.
Jiaqi TongDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale University.
Dylan S SmallDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Tim P MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.
Fan LiDepartment of Biostatistics and Center for Methods in Implementation and Prevention Science, Yale University.

Funding

Advancing the design, analysis, and interpretation of acute respiratory distress syndrome trials using modern statistical toolsR01HL168202 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Michael Oscar Harhay, Fan Li · 2023 to 2026
$2.9M
Emerging methods and applications for test-negative studies of of infectious disease interventionsR01AI148127 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI JEWELL, NICHOLAS P · 2020 to 2023
$1.8M
Improving the design and statistical analysis of cluster-randomized trials on tropical infectious diseasesR00AI173395 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WANG, BINGKAI · 2024 to 2025
$497k
Improving the design and statistical analysis of cluster-randomized trials on tropical infectious diseasesK99AI173395 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WANG, BINGKAI · 2023 to 2023
$94k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL168202NIAID NIH HHS K99 AI173395NIAID NIH HHS R00 AI173395NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI148127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the analyses of cluster-randomized trials, mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is a standard approach for covariate adjustment and handling within-cluster correlations. However, when the normality, linearity, or the random-intercept assumption is violated, the validity and efficiency of the mixed-model ANCOVA estimators for estimating the average treatment effect remain unclear. Under the potential outcomes framework, we prove that the mixed-model ANCOVA estimators for the average treatment effect are consistent and asymptotically normal under arbitrary misspecification of its working model. If the probability of receiving treatment is 0.5 for each cluster, we further show that the model-based variance estimator under mixed-model ANCOVA1 (ANCOVA without treatment-covariate interactions) remains consistent, clarifying that the confidence interval given by standard software is asymptotically valid even under model misspecification. Beyond robustness, we discuss several insights on precision among classical methods for analyzing cluster-randomized trials, including the mixed-model ANCOVA, individual-level ANCOVA, and cluster-level ANCOVA estimators. These insights may inform the choice of methods in practice. Our analytical results and insights are illustrated via simulation studies and analyses of three cluster-randomized trials.

Indexed as

Average treatment effectCausal inferenceCluster-randomized experimentsCovariate adjustmentModel robustnessPrecision

Identifiers

PMID41541796
PMCPMC12803445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.