Power Calculation for Noninferiority Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trials
Guo, J.; Hsu, C.-Y.; Shyr, Y.
Show abstract
Background: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) are increasingly used when interventions need to be implemented sequentially across clusters. Despite extensive developments in the design and analysis of superiority SW-CRTs, methods for planning noninferiority SW-CRTs remain limited. Methods: We propose swNIsim, a simulation-based framework for power calculation in noninferiority SW-CRTs using generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs). The proposed approach accommodates both continuous and binary outcomes and supports practical design features, including unequal numbers of clusters across sequences, varying cluster-period sizes, delayed intervention effects, and analyses with or without adjustment for secular time effects. Noninferiority margins can be specified using several commonly applied strategies. Results: Through extensive simulation studies, we examined the impact of key design parameters on statistical power, including the number of periods, the number of clusters per sequence, the number of individuals per cluster-period, and the degree of between-cluster variability. For a fixed total sample size, designs with more time periods consistently achieved higher power. Increasing the number of clusters per sequence produced modest gains in power, whereas greater between-cluster variability reduced power. Type I error rates were well controlled across the scenarios examined. Balanced allocation of clusters across sequences was more efficient than unbalanced allocation schemes. Two real-world SW-CRT examples were used to illustrate application of the method. Conclusions: The proposed swNIsim provides a flexible and practical approach for power calculation in noninferiority SW-CRTs. By accommodating a wide range of design configurations and outcome types, and through implementation as a freely available R package, swNIsim may facilitate the planning and design of noninferiority stepped-wedge trials.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 94%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 94%
- Machine learning for randomised controlled trials: identifying treatment effect heterogeneity with strict control of type I error 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using the Bayesian credible subgroups method to identify populations benefiting from treatment: An application to the Look AHEAD trial 94%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 93%
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 94%
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 93%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of estimands in cluster randomised trials: a review 95%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 92%
- Estimating Counterfactual Placebo HIV Incidence in HIV Prevention Trials Without Placebo Arms Based on Markers of HIV Exposure 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.