University of Leicester
Browse
- No file added yet -

Mind the gap: covariate constrained randomisation can protect against substantial power loss in parallel cluster randomised trials

Download (1.76 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-10-20, 13:24 authored by Caroline Kristunas, Michael Grayling, Laura Gray, Karla Hemming

Background: Cluster randomised trials often randomise a small number of units, putting them at risk of poor balance of covariates across treatment arms. Covariate constrained randomisation aims to reduce this risk by removing the worst balanced allocations from consideration. This is known to provide only a small gain in power over that averaged under simple randomisation and is likely infuenced by the number and prognostic efect of the covariates. We investigated the performance of covariate constrained randomisation in comparison to the worst balanced allocations, and considered the impact on the power of the prognostic efect and number of covariates adjusted for in the analysis. Methods: Using simulation, we examined the Monte Carlo type I error rate and power of cross-sectional, two-arm parallel cluster-randomised trials with a continuous outcome and four binary cluster-level covariates, using either simple or covariate constrained randomisation. Data were analysed using a small sample corrected linear mixed-efects model, adjusted for some or all of the binary covariates. We varied the number of clusters, intra-cluster correlation, number and prognostic efect of covariates balanced in the randomisation and adjusted in the analysis, and the size of the candidate set from which the allocation was selected. For each scenario, 20,000 simulations were conducted. Results: When compared to the worst balanced allocations, covariate constrained randomisation with an adjusted analysis provided gains in power of up to 20 percentage points. Even with analysis-based adjustment for those covariates balanced in the randomisation, the type I error rate was not maintained when the intracluster correlation is very small (0.001). Generally, greater power was achieved when more prognostic covariates are restricted in the randomisation and as the size of the candidate set decreases. However, adjustment for weakly prognostic covariates lead to a loss in power of up to 20 percentage points. Conclusions: When compared to the worst balanced allocations, covariate constrained randomisation provides moderate to substantial improvements in power. However, the prognostic efect of the covariates should be carefully considered when selecting them for inclusion in the randomisation. 

Funding

CK was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) fellowship DRF-2016–09-025. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This research was partly funded by the UK NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands initiative. KH is funded by an NIHR Senior Research Fellowship SRF-2017–10-002.

History

Citation

BMC Med Res Methodol 22, 111 (2022)

Author affiliation

Department of Health Sciences

Version

  • VoR (Version of Record)

Published in

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volume

22

Publisher

BioMed Central

issn

1471-2288

Acceptance date

2022-03-21

Copyright date

2022

Available date

2023-10-20

Language

en

Usage metrics

    University of Leicester Publications

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC