↓ Skip to main content

Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
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
Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study
Published in
Trials, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2248-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Pedroza, Van Thi Thanh Truong

Abstract

Analyses of multicenter studies often need to account for center clustering to ensure valid inference. For binary outcomes, it is particularly challenging to properly adjust for center when the number of centers or total sample size is small, or when there are few events per center. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of generalized estimating equation (GEE) log-binomial and Poisson models, generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming binomial and Poisson distributions, and a Bayesian binomial GLMM to account for center effect in these scenarios. We conducted a simulation study with few centers (≤30) and 50 or fewer subjects per center, using both a randomized controlled trial and an observational study design to estimate relative risk. We compared the GEE and GLMM models with a log-binomial model without adjustment for clustering in terms of bias, root mean square error (RMSE), and coverage. For the Bayesian GLMM, we used informative neutral priors that are skeptical of large treatment effects that are almost never observed in studies of medical interventions. All frequentist methods exhibited little bias, and the RMSE was very similar across the models. The binomial GLMM had poor convergence rates, ranging from 27% to 85%, but performed well otherwise. The results show that both GEE models need to use small sample corrections for robust SEs to achieve proper coverage of 95% CIs. The Bayesian GLMM had similar convergence rates but resulted in slightly more biased estimates for the smallest sample sizes. However, it had the smallest RMSE and good coverage across all scenarios. These results were very similar for both study designs. For the analyses of multicenter studies with a binary outcome and few centers, we recommend adjustment for center with either a GEE log-binomial or Poisson model with appropriate small sample corrections or a Bayesian binomial GLMM with informative priors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Lecturer 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 22%
Mathematics 8 15%
Psychology 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 28%