Cited by 299Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Design and analysis of clinical trials with clustering effects due to treatment

Roberts, Chris, Roberts, Stephen A·2005·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Where patients receive therapy as a group, there are good theoretical reasons to believe that variation in the outcome will be smaller for patients treated in the same group than for patients treated in different groups. Similarly, where different therapists treat different groups of patients, outcome for patients treated by the same therapist may differ less than outcome for patients treated by different therapists. Clinical trials evaluating such therapies need to consider this potential lack of independence. As with cluster-randomized trials, this has implications for the precision of treatment effects estimates and statistical power. There are nevertheless differences between clustering due to the organization of treatment and that due to randomization. In cluster-randomized trials the distribution of cluster sizes in each treatment arm should be similar as a consequence of randomization unless there is differential loss to follow-up. With clustering due to therapy group or therapist, cluster size may differ systematically between treatment arms, due to size of therapy groups or differing health professional caseload. Intra-cluster correlation may also differ between treatment arms. The implications of differential cluster size and intracluster correlation for design and analysis will be illustrated by data from two trials, the first comparing nurse practitioner care with general practitioner care, and the second comparing a group therapy with individual treatment as usua…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/1740774505cn076oa

Cites

30 of 30 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
Roberts, C., & Roberts, S. A.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Chris
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2005-04
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
152-162
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W2093029291
Cited by
299
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 17
FWCI
4.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
cluster effect, group therapy, therapist effects, intra-cluster correlation, statistical power, sample size, general practitioner care, simulation study
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Group Processes, Humans, Nurse Practitioners, Physicians, Family, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size

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