↓ Skip to main content

Recommendations for the analysis of individually randomised controlled trials with clustering in one arm – a case of continuous outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recommendations for the analysis of individually randomised controlled trials with clustering in one arm – a case of continuous outcomes
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0249-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Flight, Annabel Allison, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Ellen Lee, Laura Mandefield, Stephen J. Walters

Abstract

In an individually randomised controlled trial where the treatment is delivered by a health professional it seems likely that the effectiveness of the treatment, independent of any treatment effect, could depend on the skill, training or even enthusiasm of the health professional delivering it. This may then lead to a potential clustering of the outcomes for patients treated by the same health professional, but similar clustering may not occur in the control arm. Using four case studies, we aim to provide practical guidance and recommendations for the analysis of trials with some element of clustering in one arm. Five approaches to the analysis of outcomes from an individually randomised controlled trial with clustering in one arm are identified in the literature. Some of these methods are applied to four case studies of completed randomised controlled trials with clustering in one arm with sample sizes ranging from 56 to 539. Results are obtained using the statistical packages R and Stata and summarised using a forest plot. The intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for each of the case studies was small (<0.05) indicating little dependence on the outcomes related to cluster allocations. All models fitted produced similar results, including the simplest approach of ignoring clustering for the case studies considered. A partially clustered approach, modelling the clustering in just one arm, most accurately represents the trial design and provides valid results. Modelling homogeneous variances between the clustered and unclustered arm is adequate in scenarios similar to the case studies considered. We recommend treating each participant in the unclustered arm as a single cluster. This approach is simple to implement in R and Stata and is recommended for the analysis of trials with clustering in one arm only. However, the case studies considered had small ICC values, limiting the generalisability of these results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Lecturer 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Mathematics 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Design 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,759,523
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#753
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,740
of 419,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.