MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK. Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
BACKGROUND Recent work has shown that cluster-randomised trials can estimate two distinct estimands: the participant-average and cluster-average treatment effects. These can differ when participant outcomes or the treatment effect depends on the cluster size (termed informative cluster size). In this case, estimators that target one estimand (such as the analysis of unweighted cluster-level summaries, which targets the cluster-average effect) may
be biased for the other. Furthermore, commonly used estimators such as mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure can be biased for both estimands. However, there has been little empirical research into whether informative cluster size is likely to occur in practice. METHOD We re-analysed a cluster-randomised trial comparing two different thresholds for red blood cell transfusion in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding to explore whether estimates for the participant- and cluster-average effects differed, to provide empirical evidence for whether informative cluster size may be present. For each outcome, we first estimated a participant-average effect using independence estimating equations, which are unbiased under informative cluster size. We then compared this to two further methods: (1) a cluster-average effect estimated using either weighted independence estimating equations or unweighted cluster-level summaries, and (2) estimates from a mixed-effects model or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure. We then performed a small simulation study to evaluate whether observed differences between cluster- and participant-average estimates were likely to occur even if no informative cluster size was present. RESULTS For most outcomes, treatment effect estimates from different methods were similar. However, differences of >10% occurred between participant- and cluster-average estimates for 5 of 17 outcomes (29%). We also observed several notable differences between estimates from mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure and those based on independence estimating equations. For example, for the EQ-5D VAS score, the independence estimating equation estimate of the participant-average difference was 4.15 (95% confidence interval: -3.37 to 11.66), compared with 2.84 (95% confidence interval: -7.37 to 13.04) for the cluster-average independence estimating equation estimate, and 3.23 (95% confidence interval: -6.70 to 13.16) from a mixed-effects model. Similarly, for thromboembolic/ischaemic events, the independence estimating equation estimate for the participant-average odds ratio was 0.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.07 to 2.48), compared with 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 1.77) from the cluster-average estimator. CONCLUSION In this re-analysis, we found that estimates from the various approaches could differ, which may be due to the presence of informative cluster size. Careful consideration of the estimand and the plausibility of assumptions underpinning each estimator can help ensure an appropriate analysis methods are used. Independence estimating equations and the analysis of cluster-level summaries (with appropriate weighting for each to correspond to either the participant-average or cluster-average treatment effect) are a desirable choice when informative cluster size is deemed possible, due to their unbiasedness in this setting.