Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butler, C.
Right arrow Articles by Bachmann, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Butler, C.
Right arrow Articles by Bachmann, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 13, No. 4, 402-407
© Oxford University Press 1996


research-article

Design and analysis of studies evaluating smoking cessation interventions where effects vary between practices or practitioners

Chris Butler and Max Bachmann*

University of Wales College of Medicine, Llanedeyrn Health Centre Maelfa, Llanedeyrn, Cardiff CF3 7PN, UK
*University of Bristol, Department of Social Medicine Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK

BACKGROUND.: Background. Patients grouped together in practices may share characteristics that cause them to have similar responses to an intervention. Sampling from such groups means that the power of a trial is less than when subjects are selected from the population at random. Knowledge of likely variation in outcome at the practice level is necessary to calculate the extent to which sample size would need to be inflated to maintain statistical power in the face of ‘cluster effects’.

OBJECTIVE.: To plan sample size and precision requirements of a clinical trial, we examined reports of primary care smoking cessation trials for information on outcomes at the level of clusters, and found them unhelpful. We therefore constructed hypothetical scenarios to quantify the potential importance of this effect.

METHOD.: Scenarios of moderate and large inter cluster variation were compared with a sample where there was no difference in effect size at the level of practices.

RESULTS.: A study with 80% power to detect a difference of 20% versus 10% at a 5% significance level would need 200 patients in each arm in the absence of cluster effects. With moderate variation in outcome between clusters, over a thousand patients would be needed in the study to maintain this precision. With larger inter-cluster variation, close to 4000 subjects would be required.

CONCLUSIONS.: In the absence of detailed data from previous studies, hypothetical models can give insight into the statistical implications of possible cluster effects on study design and analysis. With even moderate intercluster variation, sample size will have to be inflated considerably to maintain the same statistical precision. Workers in this field will greatly assist those planning future research if they publish details of variation in outcome at the level of clusters.

Keywords. Smoking cessation, research design, cluster analysis, statistics.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
M. K Campbell, P. M Fayers, and J. M Grimshaw
Determinants of the intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: the case of implementation research
Clinical Trials, April 1, 2005; 2(2): 99 - 107.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
K. J Lee and S. G Thompson
The use of random effects models to allow for clustering in individually randomized trials
Clinical Trials, April 1, 2005; 2(2): 163 - 173.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
M. K Campbell, D. R Elbourne, and D. G Altman
CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
BMJ, March 20, 2004; 328(7441): 702 - 708.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Stat Methods Med ResHome page
M J Campbell
Cluster randomized trials in general (family) practice research
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, April 1, 2000; 9(2): 81 - 94.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.