Spatial analysis of cluster randomised trials: a systematic review of analysis methods.


Jarvis, C; Di Tanna, GL; Lewis, D; Alexander, N; Edmunds, WJ; (2017) Spatial analysis of cluster randomised trials: a systematic review of analysis methods. Emerging themes in epidemiology, 14. p. 12. ISSN 1742-7622 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-017-0066-2

[img]
Preview
Text - Published Version
License:

Download (934kB) | Preview

Abstract

Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) often use geographical areas as the unit of randomisation, however explicit consideration of the location and spatial distribution of observations is rare. In many trials, the location of participants will have little importance, however in some, especially against infectious diseases, spillover effects due to participants being located close together may affect trial results. This review aims to identify spatial analysis methods used in CRTs and improve understanding of the impact of spatial effects on trial results. A systematic review of CRTs containing spatial methods, defined as a method that accounts for the structure, location, or relative distances between observations. We searched three sources: Ovid/Medline, Pubmed, and Web of Science databases. Spatial methods were categorised and details of the impact of spatial effects on trial results recorded. We identified ten papers which met the inclusion criteria, comprising thirteen trials. We found that existing approaches fell into two categories; spatial variables and spatial modelling. The spatial variable approach was most common and involved standard statistical analysis of distance measurements. Spatial modelling is a more sophisticated approach which incorporates the spatial structure of the data within a random effects model. Studies tended to demonstrate the importance of accounting for location and distribution of observations in estimating unbiased effects. There have been a few attempts to control and estimate spatial effects within the context of human CRTs, but our overall understanding is limited. Although spatial effects may bias trial results, their consideration was usually a supplementary, rather than primary analysis. Further work is required to evaluate and develop the spatial methodologies relevant to a range of CRTs.

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health > Dept of Infectious Disease Epidemiology
Faculty of Public Health and Policy > Dept of Social and Environmental Health Research
Related URLs:
PubMed ID: 28947911
Web of Science ID: 411437400001
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4461224

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
3Downloads
36Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item