Cited by 74Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques

Intra-cluster correlation coefficients in adults with diabetes in primary care practices: the Vermont Diabetes Information System field survey

Open access
Littenberg, Benjamin, MacLean, Charles D·2006·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

Background: Proper estimation of sample size requirements for cluster-based studies requires estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for the variables of interest. Methods: We calculated the ICC for 112 variables measured as part of the Vermont Diabetes Information System, a cluster-randomized study of adults with diabetes from 73 primary care practices (the clusters) in Vermont and surrounding areas. Results: ICCs varied widely around a median value of 0.0185 (Inter-quartile range: 0.006, 0.037). Some characteristics (such as the proportion having a recent creatinine measurement) were highly associated with the practice (ICC = 0.288), while others (prevalence of some comorbidities and complications and certain aspects of quality of life) varied much more across patients with only small correlation within practices (ICC<0.001). Conclusion: The ICC values reported here may be useful in designing future studies that use clustered sampling from primary care practices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-6-20

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a difference of 0.5% in A1C levels, using a two-sample t test (two-sided, α = 0.05), assuming a common SD of 1.5%; 408 patients were required.

    “The study was designed to have a 90% power to detect a difference of 0.5% in A1C levels. This was determined using a two-sample t test (two-sided, α = 0.05), assuming a common SD of 1.5%. The estimate of SD in A1C values was inflated from 1.15 to 1.50 because of the clustering effect (18,19). We required a total of 408 patients (204 per study arm) to achieve the specified statistical power.”

    From Structured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Significantly Reduces A1C Levels in Poorly Controlled, Noninsulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes (2011) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Background explains that clustered designs require an inflation adjustment when estimating sample size, which supports the rationale for accounting for clustering. It does not report an A1C SD adjustment from 1.15 to 1.50; the citing paper’s power target and 408-patient requirement are not the part attached to this citation. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kerry SM Bland JM Analysis of a trial randomized in clusters BMJ 1998 316 54 9451271 PMC2665333
  2. Stata Corporation Loneway – Large one-way ANOVA random effects, and reliabaility Stata Base Reference Manual, G-M, Release 8 2003 2 College Station, TX: Stata Press 338 43

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Littenberg, B., & MacLean, C. D.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Littenberg, Benjamin
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2006-05-03
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
20-20
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1815444468
Cited by
73
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK61167, K24DK068380, R01DK061167)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Keywords
intra-cluster correlation, diabetes mellitus, primary care practices, sample size determination, cluster sampling, comorbidities, quality of life, creatinine measurement, clustered data
MeSH terms
Adult, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Information Systems, Male, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vermont, Cluster Analysis, Biomedical Research

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