Meta-analysis of community-based cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cluster randomization trials are widely used to test the effect of an intervention when individuals are naturally found in groups such as communities. For several separate studies of a similar intervention, it may be of interest to combine their results using meta-analysis procedures. However, this task requires consideration of both the likely dependencies among cluster members (intracluster correlation) and stratification based on the studies considered. PURPOSE: In this article, several possible approaches for meta-analysis are considered for cluster randomization trials having a binary outcome. METHODS: It is first noted that the standard Mantel-Haenszel test is invalid in this context since it ignores dependencies among cluster members. Two modifications are therefore considered as well as a general inverse variance approach and a procedure based on the Woolf statistic which does not require the availability of trial-specific design effects. Empirical Type I errors and powers for the different procedures considered are evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. To illustrate the techniques, data are used from trials performed in four countries to compare two antenatal care programs with respect to their effects on the risk of hypertension during pregnancy. RESULTS: For the simulation scenarios considered, an adjusted Mantel-Haenszel procedure provides a valid test with the greatest power slightly outperforming the general inverse variance approach. LIMITATIONS: The potential need to adjust for possible confounding was not considered. However, more detailed information on confounders would not likely be available for most meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Two procedures performed well. However, the choice of analysis approach also inevitably depends on the nature and extent of the available data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.124 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".