Back

Choice of estimands and estimators affected the interpretation of results for some outcomes in a cluster-randomised trial (RESTORE) due to informative cluster size

Bi, D.; Copas, A.; Li, F.; Harhay, M. O.; Kahan, B. C.

2026-05-06 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.05.05.26352371 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and objective In cluster-randomised trials (CRTs), different estimands can be targeted, such as the individual- or cluster-average effect. These two estimands can differ in magnitude when outcomes or treatment effects vary with cluster size (termed informative cluster size (ICS)). When ICS is present, commonly used estimators for CRTs, such as mixed-effects model and generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure (termed GEEs(exch)), can be biased for both these estimands. With little documented evaluation of ICS, it is currently unknown how commonly it occurs in practice. The aim of this work was to explore whether ICS is present in a published CRT and to investigate its impact on trial results. Methods We re-analysed the RESTORE CRT, which compared protocolised sedation with usual care for critically ill children. For each outcome, we first modelled the association between cluster size and outcome/treatment effect; next, we assessed the impact of ICS by comparing differences between (i) individual- vs. cluster-average estimates and (ii) estimates from mixed-effects models and GEEs(exch) (which can be affected by ICS) to those from IEEs (which are robust to ICS). Results We found evidence of an association between cluster size and either outcomes or treatment effects for 16/33 outcomes (48%). This led to statistically significant differences between the individual- and cluster-average treatment effects for 5 of 33 outcomes (15%). There were >10% differences between (i) individual- and cluster-average treatment effect estimates for 17 outcomes (52%) and (ii) estimates from mixed-effects models/GEEs(exch) and estimates from unweighted IEEs for 13 outcomes (39%). For some outcomes, differences in the choice of estimator or estimand led to differences in the interpretation of results. For example, for the outcome postextubation stridor, the individual-average estimate showed a significant harmful effect (OR=1.65, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.67), unlike the cluster-average (OR=1.38, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.19) or GEEs(exch) estimate (OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.98, 2.50). Discussion ICS can occur in CRTs, and the use of estimators that are not clearly aligned to the target estimand can affect the interpretation of some results.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 2%
34.0%
2
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.4%
4
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
5
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.4%
7
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
9
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
10
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
11
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
12
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
14
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
15
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
16
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
17
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
18
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
19
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
20
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
22
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
25
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
27
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
28
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
29
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
30
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%