Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sprague S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7528596 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials.
Sprague Sheila S Scott Taryn T Dodds Shannon S Pogorzelski David D McKay Paula P Harris Anthony D AD Wood Amber A Thabane Lehana L Bhandari Mohit M Mehta Samir S Gaski Greg G Boulton Christina C Marcano-Fernández Francesc F Guerra-Farfán Ernesto E Hebden Joan J O'Hara Lyndsay M LM Slobogean Gerard P GP
Trials 20200930 1
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn cluster randomized crossover (CRXO) trials, groups of participants (i.e., clusters) are randomly allocated to receive a sequence of interventions over time (i.e., cluster periods). CRXO trials are becoming more comment when they are feasible, as they require fewer clusters than parallel group cluster randomized trials. However, CRXO trials have not been frequently used in orthopedic fracture trials and represent a novel methodological application within the field. To disseminate the early knowledge gained from our experience initiating two cluster randomized crossover trials, we describe our process for the identification and selection of the orthopedic practices (i.e., clusters) participating in the PREP-IT program and present data to describe their key characteristics.MethodsThe PREP-IT program comprises two ongoing pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials (Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE) which compare the effect of iodophor versus chlorhexidine solutions on surgical site infection and unplanned fracture-related reoperations in patients undergoing operative fracture management. We describe the process we used to identify and select orthopedic practices (clusters) for the PREP-IT trials, along with their characteristics.ResultsWe identified 58 potential orthopedic practices for inclusion in the PREP-IT trials. After screening each practice for eligibility, we selected 30 practices for participation and randomized each to a sequence of interventions (15 for Aqueous-PREP and 20 for PREPARE). The majority of orthopedic practices included in the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE trials were situated in level I trauma centers (100% and 87%, respectively). Orthopedic practices in the Aqueous-PREP trial operatively treated a median of 149 open fracture patients per year, included a median of 11 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 5 infection preventionists. Orthopedic practices in the PREPARE trial treated a median of 142 open fracture and 1090 closed fracture patients per year, included a median of 7.5 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 6 infection preventionists.ConclusionsThe PREP-IT trials provide an example of how to follow the reporting standards for cluster randomized crossover trials by providing a clear definition of the cluster unit, a thorough description of the cluster identification and selection process, and sufficient description of key cluster characteristics.Trial registrationBoth trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (A-PREP: NCT03385304 December 28, 2017, and PREPARE: NCT03523962 May 14, 2018).
| S-EPMC7425374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The cluster randomized crossover design has been proposed to improve efficiency over the traditional parallel cluster randomized design, which often involves a limited number of clusters. In recent years, the cluster randomized crossover design has been increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of health care policy or programs, and the interest often lies in quantifying the population-averaged intervention effect. In this paper, we consider the two-treatment two-period crossover design, and develop sample size procedures for continuous and binary outcomes corresponding to a population-averaged model estimated by generalized estimating equations, accounting for both within-period and interperiod correlations. In particular, we show that the required sample size depends on the correlation parameters through an eigenvalue of the within-cluster correlation matrix for continuous outcomes and through two distinct eigenvalues of the correlation matrix for binary outcomes. We demonstrate that the empirical power corresponds well with the predicted power by the proposed formulae for as few as eight clusters, when outcomes are analyzed using the matrix-adjusted estimating equations for the correlation parameters concurrently with a suitable bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator.
| S-EPMC6461037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreoperative antiseptic skin solutions are used prior to most surgical procedures; however, there is no definitive research comparing infection-related outcomes following use of the various solutions available to orthopedic trauma surgeons. The objective of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of a cluster randomized crossover trial that assesses the comparative effectiveness of a 10% povidone-iodine solution versus a 4% chlorhexidine gluconate solution for the management of open fractures.MethodsTwo orthopedic trauma centers participated in this pilot study. Each of these clinical sites was randomized to a starting solution (povidone-iodine solution or chlorhexidine gluconate) then subsequently crossed over to the other treatment after 2 months. During the 4-month enrollment phase, we assessed compliance, enrollment rates, participant follow-up, and accurate documentation of the primary clinical outcome. Feasibility outcomes included (1) the implementation of the interventions during a run-in period; (2) enrollment of participants during two 2-month enrollment phases; (3) application of the trial interventions as per the cluster randomization crossover scheme; (4) participant follow-up; and (5) accurate documentation of the primary outcome (surgical site infection). Feasibility outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics reported as means (standard deviation) or medians (first quartile, third quartile) for continuous variables depending on their distribution and counts (percentage) for categorical variables. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also reported.ResultsAll five of the criteria for feasibility were met. During the run-in phase, all 18 of the eligible patients identified at the two clinical sites received the correct cluster-assigned treatment. A total of 135 patients were enrolled across both sites during the 4-month recruitment phase, which equates to 92% (95% CI 85.9 to 96.4%) of eligible patients being enrolled. Compliance with the assigned treatment in the pilot study was 98% (95% CI 93.5 to 99.8%). Ninety-eight percent (95% CI 93.5 to 99.8%) of participants completed the 90-day post-surgery follow-up and the primary outcome (SSI) was accurately documented for 100% (95% CI 96.6 to 100.0%) of the participants.ConclusionsThese results confirm the feasibility of a definitive study comparing antiseptic solutions using a cluster randomized crossover trial design. Building upon the infrastructure established during the pilot phase, a definitive study has been successfully initiated.Trial registrationClincialTrials.gov , number NCT03385304 . Registered December 28, 2017.
| S-EPMC7919062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe cluster randomized crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomization or parallel group cluster randomization is not feasible or practical. In a CRXO trial, not only are clusters of individuals rather than individuals themselves randomized to trial arms, but also each cluster participates in each arm of the trial at least once in separate periods of time.We will review publications of clinical trials undertaken in humans that have used the CRXO design. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize, as reported: the motivations for using the CRXO design, the values of the CRXO design parameters, the justification and methodology for the sample size calculations and analyses, and the quality of reporting the CRXO design aspects.Methods/designWe will identify reports of CRXO trials by systematically searching MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. In addition, we will search for methodological articles that describe the CRXO design and conduct citation searches to identify any further CRXO trials. The references of all eligible trials will also be searched. We will screen the identified abstracts, and retrieve and assess for inclusion the full text for any potentially relevant articles. Data will be extracted from the full text independently by two reviewers. Descriptive summary statistics will be presented for the extracted data.DiscussionThis systematic review will inform both researchers addressing CRXO methodology and trialists considering implementing the design. The results will allow focused methodological research of the CRXO design, provide practical examples for researchers of how CRXO trials have been conducted, including any shortcomings, and highlight areas where reporting and conduct may be improved.
| S-EPMC4138528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.
| S-EPMC3503701 | biostudies-other
Project description:In recent years, the number of studies using a cluster-randomized design has grown dramatically. In addition, the cluster-randomized crossover design has been touted as a methodological advance that can increase efficiency of cluster-randomized studies in certain situations. While the cluster-randomized crossover trial has become a popular tool, standards of design, analysis, reporting and implementation have not been established for this emergent design. We address one particular aspect of cluster-randomized and cluster-randomized crossover trial design: estimating statistical power. We present a general framework for estimating power via simulation in cluster-randomized studies with or without one or more crossover periods. We have implemented this framework in the clusterPower software package for R, freely available online from the Comprehensive R Archive Network. Our simulation framework is easy to implement and users may customize the methods used for data analysis. We give four examples of using the software in practice. The clusterPower package could play an important role in the design of future cluster-randomized and cluster-randomized crossover studies. This work is the first to establish a universal method for calculating power for both cluster-randomized and cluster-randomized clinical trials. More research is needed to develop standardized and recommended methodology for cluster-randomized crossover studies.
| S-EPMC3338707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Six randomized clinical trials have been implemented to examine the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and/or TDF/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as preexposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 infection (PrEP). Although largely complementary, the six trials have many similar features. As the earliest results become available, an urgent question may arise regarding whether changes should be made in the conduct of the other trials. To consider this in advance, a Consultation on the Implications of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Trials Results sponsored by the Division of AIDS (DAIDS) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) was held on January 29, 2010, at the Natcher Conference Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD. Participants included basic scientists, clinical researchers (including investigators performing the current PrEP trials), and representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the agencies sponsoring the trials: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the BMGF, and the U.S. NIH. We report here a summary of the presentations and highlights of salient discussion topics from this workshop.
| S-EPMC3014767 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWithin cluster randomized trials no algorithms exist to generate a full enumeration of a block randomization, balancing for covariates across treatment arms. Furthermore, often for practical reasons multiple blocks are required to fully randomize a study, which may not have been well balanced within blocks.ResultsWe present a convenient and easy to use randomization tool to undertake allocation concealed block randomization. Our algorithm highlights allocations that minimize imbalance between treatment groups across multiple baseline covariates. We demonstrate the algorithm using a cluster randomized trial in primary care (the PRE-EMPT Study) and show that the software incorporates a trade off between independent random allocations that were likely to be imbalanced, and predictable deterministic approaches that would minimise imbalance. We extend the methodology of single block randomization to allocate to multiple blocks conditioning on previous allocations.ConclusionThe algorithm is included as Additional file 1 and we advocate its use for robust randomization within cluster randomized trials.
| S-EPMC2588445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) have been widely used in field experiments treating a cluster of individuals as the unit of randomization. This study focused particularly on situations where CRTs are accompanied by a common complication, namely, treatment noncompliance or, more generally, intervention nonadherence. In CRTs, compliance may be related not only to individual characteristics but also to the environment of clusters individuals belong to. Therefore, analyses ignoring the connection between compliance and clustering may not provide valid results. Although randomized field experiments often suffer from both noncompliance and clustering of the data, these features have been studied as separate rather than concurrent problems. On the basis of Monte Carlo simulations, this study demonstrated how clustering and noncompliance may affect statistical inferences and how these two complications can be accounted for simultaneously. In particular, the effect of the intervention on individuals who not only were assigned to active intervention but also abided by this intervention assignment (complier average causal effect) was the focus. For estimation of intervention effects considering noncompliance and data clustering, an ML-EM estimation method was employed.
| S-EPMC2917590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The objective of this review is to provide a practical update on endpoint selection for noninferiority (NI) studies in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. METHODS:A PubMed search was conducted for predefined terms to explore the use of NI designs and intrapatient comparisons to determine their current importance. Sample size calculations for the most frequently used endpoints with NI hypotheses were done to increase statistical awareness. RESULTS:Reported NI trials, with the most frequently chosen clinical endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), had NI margins ranging from 1.66% to 5.00%, resulting in patient populations of 400-1500 per treatment group. Clinical study endpoints comprising of MACE complemented with rates of bleeding complications and stent thrombosis (ST) are suggested to conduct a statistically and clinically meaningful NI trial. Study designs with surrogate endpoints amenable to intrapatient randomizations, are a very attractive option to reduce the number of necessary patients by about half. Comparative clinical endpoint studies with MACE and ST/bleeding rates to study a shortened dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in coronary stent trials are feasible, whereas ST as the sole primary endpoint is not useful. CONCLUSIONS:Expanded composite clinical endpoints (MACE complemented by ST and bleeding rates and intrapatient randomization for selected surrogate endpoints) may be suitable tools to meet future needs in device approval, recertification and reimbursement.
| S-EPMC7074513 | biostudies-literature