Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research

Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes

Authors: Angela Reitsma, Rong Chu, Julia Thorpe, Sarah McDonald, Lehana Thabane, Eileen Hutton

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clustering of outcomes at centers involved in multicenter trials is a type of center effect. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement recommends that multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should account for center effects in their analysis, however most do not. The Early External Cephalic Version (EECV) trials published in 2003 and 2011 stratified by center at randomization, but did not account for center in the analyses, and due to the nature of the intervention and number of centers, may have been prone to center effects. Using data from the EECV trials, we undertook an empirical study to compare various statistical approaches to account for center effect while estimating the impact of external cephalic version timing (early or delayed) on the outcomes of cesarean section, preterm birth, and non-cephalic presentation at the time of birth.

Methods

The data from the EECV pilot trial and the EECV2 trial were merged into one dataset. Fisher’s exact method was used to test the overall effect of external cephalic version timing unadjusted for center effects. Seven statistical models that accounted for center effects were applied to the data. The models included: i) the Mantel-Haenszel test, ii) logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment effect, iii) center-size weighted and iv) un-weighted logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment-by-center interaction, iv) logistic regression with random center effect and fixed treatment effect, v) logistic regression with random center effect and random treatment-by-center interaction, and vi) generalized estimating equations.

Results

For each of the three outcomes of interest approaches to account for center effect did not alter the overall findings of the trial. The results were similar for the majority of the methods used to adjust for center, illustrating the robustness of the findings.

Conclusions

Despite literature that suggests center effect can change the estimate of effect in multicenter trials, this empirical study does not show a difference in the outcomes of the EECV trials when accounting for center effect.

Trial registration

The EECV2 trial was registered on 30 July 30 2005 with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN56498577.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Biau DJ, Porcher R, Boutron I: The account for provider and center effects in multicenter interventional and surgical randomized controlled trials is in need of improvement: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61: 435-439. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.018.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Petrinco M, Pagano E, Desideri A, Bigi R, Ghidina M, Ferrando A, Cortigiani L, Merletti F, Gregori E: Information on center characteristics as costs’ determinants in multicenter clinical trials: is modeling center effect worth the effort?. Value Health. 2009, 12: 325-330. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00420.x.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Localio AR, Berlin JA, Ten Have TR, Kimmel SE: Adjustments for center in multicenter studies: an overview. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 135: 112-123. 10.7326/0003-4819-135-2-200107170-00012.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, CONSORT Group: Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008, 148: 295-309. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Chan A, Altman DG: Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005, 365: 1159-1162. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T, CONSORT Group: The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 134: 663-694. 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tangri N, Kitsios GD, Su SH, Kent DM: Accounting for center effects in multicenter trials. Epidemiology. 2010, 21: 912-913. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181f56fc0.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Chu R, Thabane L, Ma J, Holbrook A, Pullenayegum E, Devereaux P: Comparing methods to estimate treatment effects on a continuous outcome in multicenter randomized trials: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011, 11: 1-15. 10.1186/1471-2288-11-1.CrossRef
9.
Carlin JB, Wolfe R, Brown CH, Gelman A: A case study on the choice, interpretation and checking of multilevel models for longitudinal binary outcomes. Biostatistics. 2001, 2: 397-416. 10.1093/biostatistics/2.4.397.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Heo M, Leon AC: Comparison of statistical methods for analysis of clustered binary observations. Stat Med. 2005, 24: 911-923. 10.1002/sim.1958.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Liang K, Zeger SL: Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986, 73: 13-22. 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13.CrossRef
12.
Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD, Hauck WW: A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. Int Statist Rev. 1991, 59: 25-35. 10.2307/1403572.CrossRef
13.
Hutton EK, Kaufman K, Hodnett E, Amankwah K, Hewson S, McKay D, Szalai JP, Hannah ME: External cephalic version beginning at 34 weeks’ gestation versus 37 weeks’ gestation: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 189: 245-254. 10.1067/mob.2003.442.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Ross SJ, Delisle MF, Carson GD, Windrim R, Ohlsson A, Willan AR, Gafni A, Sylvestre G, Natale R, Barret Y, Pollard JK, Dunn MS, Turtle P, Early ECV2 Trial Collaborative Group: The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicenter randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG. 2011, 118: 564-577. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02837.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Lachin JM: Biostatistical Methods: The Assessment of Relative Risks. 2000, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, doi:10.1002/9780470317051.ch7CrossRef
16.
17.
Senn S: Some controversies in planning and analysing multi-center trials. Stat Med. 1998, 17: 1753-1765. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980815/30)17:15/16<1753::AID-SIM977>3.0.CO;2-X.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zhang J, Boos D: Mantel-Haenszel test statistic for correlated binary data. Biometrics. 1997, 53: 1185-1198. 10.2307/2533489.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Yanagawa T, Fugii Y, Mastuoka J: Generalized Mantel-Haenszel procedures for 2 × J tables. Environ Health Perspect. 1994, Suppl 8: 57-60.CrossRef
20.
Agresti A, Hartzel J: Strategies for comparing treatments on a binary response with multi-center data. Stat Med. 2000, 19: 1115-1139. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000430)19:8<1115::AID-SIM408>3.0.CO;2-X.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lee KJ, Thompson SG: The use of random effects models to allow for clustering in individually randomized trials. Clin Trials. 2005, 2: 163-173. 10.1191/1740774505cn082oa.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kahan BC, Morris TP: Analysis of multicentre trials with continuous outcomes: when and how should we account for centre effects?. Stat Med. 2013, 32: 1136-1149. 10.1002/sim.5667.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kahan BC: Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome – when, why, and how?. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014, 14: 20-10.1186/1471-2288-14-20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE: Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol. 2003, 157: 364-375. 10.1093/aje/kwf215.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R: External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012, 10: CD000083
26.
Austen PC: A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of repeated cross-sectional cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes. Int J Biostat. 2010, 6: 11-
27.
Ma J, Thabane L, Kaczorowski J, Chambers L, Dolovich L, Karwalajtys T, Levitt C: Comparison of Bayesian and classical methods in the analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome: The Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009, 9: 37-10.1186/1471-2288-9-37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S: Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika. 1984, 71: 431-444. 10.1093/biomet/71.3.431.CrossRef
29.
Hedeker D, Gibbons RD: Application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods. 1997, 2: 64-78.CrossRef
30.
Hedeker D, Gibbons RD: Longitudinal Data Analysis. 2006, New York: Wiley
31.
Little RJA, Rubin DB: Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2002, New York: Wiley, 2
32.
Schafer JL, Graham JW: Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods. 2002, 7: 147-177.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Kahan BC, Morris TP: Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2013, 13: 58-10.1186/1471-2288-13-58.CrossRef
34.
Vierron E, Giraudeau B: Sample size calculation for multicenter randomized trial: taking the center effect into account. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007, 28: 451-458. 10.1016/j.cct.2006.11.003.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
Authors
Angela Reitsma
Rong Chu
Julia Thorpe
Sarah McDonald
Lehana Thabane
Eileen Hutton
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-377

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Trials 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research

Early intervention program reduces stress in parents of preterms during childhood, a randomized controlled trial

Update

Statistical analysis plan for the Erythropoietin in Traumatic Brain Injury trial: a randomised controlled trial of erythropoietin versus placebo in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury

Study protocol

Using a partially randomized patient preference study design to evaluate the therapeutic effect of acupuncture and cupping therapy for fibromyalgia: study protocol for a partially randomized controlled trial

Research

Predicting clinical trial results based on announcements of interim analyses

Research

Plasma fatty acid changes following consumption of dietary oils containing n-3, n-6, and n-9 fatty acids at different proportions: preliminary findings of the Canola Oil Multicenter Intervention Trial (COMIT)

Study protocol

Effectiveness of the Chest Pain Choice decision aid in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial