Including random centre effects in design, analysis and presentation of multi-centre trials

Abstract

Background In large multicentre trials in diverse settings, there is uncertainty about the need to adjust for centre variation in design and analysis. A key distinction is the difference between variation in outcome (independent of treatment) and variation in treatment effect. Through re-analysis of the CRASH-2 trial (2010), this study clarifies when and how to use multi-level models for multicentre studies with binary outcomes. Methods CRASH-2 randomised 20,127 trauma patients across 271 centres and 40 countries to either single-dose tranexamic acid or identical placebo, with all-cause death at 4 weeks the primary outcome. The trial data had a hierarchical structure, with patients nested in hospitals which in turn are nested within countries. Reanalysis of CRASH-2 trial data assessed treatment effect and both patient and centre level baseline covariates as fixed effects in logistic regression models. Random effects were included to assess where there was variation between countries, and between centres within countries, both in underlying risk of death and in treatment effect. Results In CRASH-2, there was significant variation between countries and between centres in death at 4 weeks, but absolutely no differences between countries or centres in the effect of treatment. Average treatment effect was not altered after accounting for centre and country variation in this study. Conclusions It is important to distinguish between underlying variation in outcomes and variation in treatment effects; the former is common but the latter is not. Stratifying randomisation by centre overcomes many statistical problems and including random intercepts in analysis may increase power and decrease bias in mean and standard error estimates. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86750102, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00375258, and South African Clinical Trial Register DOH-27-0607-1919

The beneficial effect of prophylactic hydrocortisone treatment in extremely preterm infants improves upon adjustment of the baseline characteristics

“…It is widely recognized that centers can differ in terms of their patient characteristics, clinical practices, and available resources, which often lead to variations in success proportions. 16 However, in our study, we observed a homogeneous efficacy of HC across centers, indicating that there was no significant interaction between the center and the effect of HC treatment.…”

MRSamePopTest: Introducing a simple falsification test for the Two-Sample Mendelian randomisation ‘same population’ assumption.

“…The randomised controlled trial (RCT) and meta-analysis literature have also introduced methods for combining estimates from different populations. Randomised controlled trials which have recurred people from different (sub-)populations, for example a multi-centre trial like the CRASH-II trial [16,17], generally account for population differences by controlling for retirement centre in the analysis [18,19]. The analogue for metaanalyses is a multi-level meta-analysis in which known population differences between trials are modelled by adding a random effect to the analysis model [20].…”

Prevalence and association of HIV and tuberculosis status in older adults in South Africa: an urgent need to escalate the scientific and political attention to aging and health

“…In South Africa, food insecurity is a major cause of malnutrition, alongside with chronic substance abuse which often lead to being underweight as the outcomes. Several studies have shown that nutrition plays a major role in establishing a strong immune system, under-nourishment, including significant loss of fat and muscle mass, is one of the risk factors of TB (34)(35)(36). Similarly, another study have indicated that where there is malnutrition, stress, drug addiction, alcoholism, and abject poverty, the presence of TB disease is often seen among vulnerable and high-risk populations (32,33).…”

“…In this study, factors at the individual-and contextual-level were considered. These factors were considered because they had a statistically significant association with older persons who had HIV and TB in earlier studies (34)(35)(36). The individual-level factors included age (50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75+), population group (African/Black, Colored, Indian/Asian, White), marital status (married, never married, divorced, widowed), gender (male, female), educational level (no education, primary, secondary/higher), and business activities (yes, no).…”