Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This work has investigated under what conditions confidence intervals around the differences in mean costs from a cluster RCT are suitable for estimation using a commonly used cluster-adjusted bootstrap in preference to methods that...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Flynn Terry N, Peters Tim J
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2004-11-01
Series:BMC Health Services Research
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/4/33
id doaj-ca1d41be046f4122a1dca961ae4b3add
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ca1d41be046f4122a1dca961ae4b3add2020-11-24T20:47:08ZengBMCBMC Health Services Research1472-69632004-11-01413310.1186/1472-6963-4-33Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation resultsFlynn Terry NPeters Tim J<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This work has investigated under what conditions confidence intervals around the differences in mean costs from a cluster RCT are suitable for estimation using a commonly used cluster-adjusted bootstrap in preference to methods that utilise the Huber-White robust estimator of variance. The bootstrap's main advantage is in dealing with skewed data, which often characterise patient costs. However, it is insufficiently well recognised that one method of adjusting the bootstrap to deal with clustered data is only valid in large samples. In particular, the requirement that the number of clusters randomised should be large would not be satisfied in many cluster RCTs performed to date.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The performances of confidence intervals for simple differences in mean costs utilising a robust (cluster-adjusted) standard error and from two cluster-adjusted bootstrap procedures were compared in terms of confidence interval coverage in a large number of simulations. Parameters varied included the intracluster correlation coefficient, the sample size and the distributions used to generate the data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The bootstrap's advantage in dealing with skewed data was found to be outweighed by its poor confidence interval coverage when the number of clusters was at the level frequently found in cluster RCTs in practice. Simulations showed that confidence intervals based on robust methods of standard error estimation achieved coverage rates between 93.5% and 94.8% for a 95% nominal level whereas those for the bootstrap ranged between 86.4% and 93.8%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In general, 24 clusters per treatment arm is probably the minimum number for which one would even begin to consider the bootstrap in preference to traditional robust methods, for the parameter combinations investigated here. At least this number of clusters and extremely skewed data would be necessary for the bootstrap to be considered in favour of the robust method. There is a need for further investigation of more complex bootstrap procedures if economic data from cluster RCTs are to be analysed appropriately.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/4/33
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Flynn Terry N
Peters Tim J
spellingShingle Flynn Terry N
Peters Tim J
Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results
BMC Health Services Research
author_facet Flynn Terry N
Peters Tim J
author_sort Flynn Terry N
title Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results
title_short Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results
title_full Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results
title_fullStr Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results
title_full_unstemmed Use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results
title_sort use of the bootstrap in analysing cost data from cluster randomised trials: some simulation results
publisher BMC
series BMC Health Services Research
issn 1472-6963
publishDate 2004-11-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This work has investigated under what conditions confidence intervals around the differences in mean costs from a cluster RCT are suitable for estimation using a commonly used cluster-adjusted bootstrap in preference to methods that utilise the Huber-White robust estimator of variance. The bootstrap's main advantage is in dealing with skewed data, which often characterise patient costs. However, it is insufficiently well recognised that one method of adjusting the bootstrap to deal with clustered data is only valid in large samples. In particular, the requirement that the number of clusters randomised should be large would not be satisfied in many cluster RCTs performed to date.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The performances of confidence intervals for simple differences in mean costs utilising a robust (cluster-adjusted) standard error and from two cluster-adjusted bootstrap procedures were compared in terms of confidence interval coverage in a large number of simulations. Parameters varied included the intracluster correlation coefficient, the sample size and the distributions used to generate the data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The bootstrap's advantage in dealing with skewed data was found to be outweighed by its poor confidence interval coverage when the number of clusters was at the level frequently found in cluster RCTs in practice. Simulations showed that confidence intervals based on robust methods of standard error estimation achieved coverage rates between 93.5% and 94.8% for a 95% nominal level whereas those for the bootstrap ranged between 86.4% and 93.8%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In general, 24 clusters per treatment arm is probably the minimum number for which one would even begin to consider the bootstrap in preference to traditional robust methods, for the parameter combinations investigated here. At least this number of clusters and extremely skewed data would be necessary for the bootstrap to be considered in favour of the robust method. There is a need for further investigation of more complex bootstrap procedures if economic data from cluster RCTs are to be analysed appropriately.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/4/33
work_keys_str_mv AT flynnterryn useofthebootstrapinanalysingcostdatafromclusterrandomisedtrialssomesimulationresults
AT peterstimj useofthebootstrapinanalysingcostdatafromclusterrandomisedtrialssomesimulationresults
_version_ 1716811050529062912