A tutorial on conducting sample size and power calculations for detecting treatment effect heterogeneity in cluster randomized trials with linear mixed models
Abstract
Cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) are a well-established class of designs for evaluating community-based interventions. An essential task in planning these trials is determining the number of clusters and cluster sizes needed to achieve sufficient statistical power for detecting a clinically relevant effect size. While methods for evaluating the average treatment effect (ATE) for the entire study population are well-established, sample size methods for testing heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTEs), i.e., treatment-covariate interaction or difference in subpopulation-specific treatment effects, in CRTs have only recently been developed. For pre-specified analyses of HTEs in CRTs, effect-modifying covariates should, ideally, be accompanied by sample size or power calculations to ensure the trial has adequate power for the planned analyses. Power analysis for testing HTEs is more complex than for ATEs due to the additional design parameters that must be specified. Power and sample size formulas for testing HTEs via linear mixed effects (LME) models have been separately derived for different cluster-randomized designs, including single and multi-period parallel designs, crossover designs, and stepped-wedge designs, and for continuous and binary outcomes. This tutorial provides a consolidated reference guide for these methods and enhances their accessibility through an online R Shiny calculator. We further discuss key considerations for conducting sample size and power…
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.