Cited by 602Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Patterns of intra-cluster correlation from primary care research to inform study design and analysis

Adams, Geoffrey, Gulliford, Martin C., Ukoumunne, Obioha C., Eldridge, Sandra, Chinn, Susan, Campbell, Michael J.·2004·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective To provide information concerning the magnitude of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for cluster-based studies set in primary care.Study design and setting Reanalysis of data from 31 cluster-based studies in primary care to estimate intraclass correlation coefficients from random effects models using maximum likelihood estimation.Results ICCs were estimated for 1,039 variables. The median ICC was 0.010 (interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 0.032, range 0 to 0.840). After adjusting for individual- and cluster-level characteristics, the median ICC was 0.005 (IQR 0 to 0.021). A given measure showed widely varying ICC estimates in different datasets. In six datasets, the ICCs for SF-36 physical functioning scale ranged from 0.001 to 0.055 and for SF-36 general health from 0 to 0.072. In four datasets, the ICC for systolic blood pressure ranged from 0 to 0.052 and for diastolic blood pressure from 0 to 0.108.Conclusion The precise magnitude of between-cluster variation for a given measure can rarely be estimated in advance. Studies should be designed with reference to the overall distribution of ICCs and with attention to features that increase efficiency.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.013

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adams, G., Gulliford, M. C., Ukoumunne, O. C., Eldridge, S., Chinn, S., & Campbell, M. J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Gulliford, Martin C.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-08
Volume
57
Issue
8
Pages
785-794
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085005241
Cited by
602
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 27
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
intraclass correlation coefficient, primary care, research design, sample size determination, random effects models, SF-36, blood pressure
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Health Services Research, Humans, Primary Health Care, Research Design, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review