Relative Risk Estimation in Cluster Randomized Trials: A Comparison of Generalized Estimating Equation Methods
Relative risks have become a popular measure of treatment effect for binary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Relative risks can be estimated directly using log binomial regression but the model may fail to converge. Alternative methods are available for estimating relative risks but these have generally only been evaluated for independent data. As some of these methods are now being applied in cluster RCTs, investigation of their performance in this context is needed. We compare log binomial regression and three alternative methods (expanded logistic regression, log Poisson regression and log normal regression) for estimating relative risks in cluster RCTs. Clustering is taken into account using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) with an independence or exchangeable working correlation structure. The results of our large simulation study show that the log binomial GEE generally performs well for clustered data but suffers from convergence problems, as expected. Both the log Poisson GEE and log normal GEE have advantages in certain settings in terms of type I error, bias and coverage. The expanded logistic GEE can perform poorly and is sensitive to the chosen working correlation structure. Conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment often differ depending on the method used, highlighting the need to pre-specify an analysis approach. We recommend pre-specifying that either the log Poisson GEE or log normal GEE will be used in the event that the log binomial GEE fails to converge.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 7 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com |
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ijb|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:7:y:2011:i:1:n:27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.