Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jun 16;9:37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-37.

Comparison of Bayesian and classical methods in the analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome: the Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT).

Author information

1
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. maj26@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly used to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve health outcomes or prevent diseases. However, the efficiency and consistency of using different analytical methods in the analysis of binary outcome have received little attention. We described and compared various statistical approaches in the analysis of CRTs using the Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT) as an example. The CHAT study was a cluster randomized controlled trial aimed at investigating the effectiveness of pharmacy-based blood pressure clinics led by peer health educators, with feedback to family physicians (CHAT intervention) against Usual Practice model (Control), on the monitoring and management of BP among older adults.

METHODS:

We compared three cluster-level and six individual-level statistical analysis methods in the analysis of binary outcomes from the CHAT study. The three cluster-level analysis methods were: i) un-weighted linear regression, ii) weighted linear regression, and iii) random-effects meta-regression. The six individual level analysis methods were: i) standard logistic regression, ii) robust standard errors approach, iii) generalized estimating equations, iv) random-effects meta-analytic approach, v) random-effects logistic regression, and vi) Bayesian random-effects regression. We also investigated the robustness of the estimates after the adjustment for the cluster and individual level covariates.

RESULTS:

Among all the statistical methods assessed, the Bayesian random-effects logistic regression method yielded the widest 95% interval estimate for the odds ratio and consequently led to the most conservative conclusion. However, the results remained robust under all methods - showing sufficient evidence in support of the hypothesis of no effect for the CHAT intervention against Usual Practice control model for management of blood pressure among seniors in primary care. The individual-level standard logistic regression is the least appropriate method in the analysis of CRTs because it ignores the correlation of the outcomes for the individuals within the same cluster.

CONCLUSION:

We used data from the CHAT trial to compare different methods for analysing data from CRTs. Using different methods to analyse CRTs provides a good approach to assess the sensitivity of the results to enhance interpretation.

PMID:
19531226
PMCID:
PMC2703649
DOI:
10.1186/1471-2288-9-37
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center