Sample size determination for win statistics in cluster-randomized trials
Abstract
Composite endpoints are increasingly used in clinical trials to capture treatment effects across multiple or hierarchically ordered outcomes. Although inference procedures based on win statistics, such as the win ratio, win odds, and win difference (net benefit) have gained traction in individually randomized trials, their methodological development for cluster-randomized trials remains limited. In particular, there is no formal framework for power and sample size determination when using win statistics with composite time-to-event outcomes. We develop a unified framework for power and sample size calculation for win statistics under cluster randomization. Analytical variance expressions are derived for a class of win statistics, yielding closed-form variance expressions and power procedures that avoid computationally intensive simulations. The variance expressions explicitly characterize the roles of the rank intracluster correlation coefficient, cluster size, tie probability, and outcome prioritization for study planning purposes. Importantly, our variances nest existing formulas for univariate outcomes as special cases while extending them to complex, hierarchically ordered composite endpoints. Simulation studies confirm accurate finite-sample performance, and we supply a case study to illustrate the use of our proposed method.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.