 for the baseline covariate which was associated with missingness. However, RELR with MMI gave slightly upward biased (maximum 8.6%) estimates of intervention effect with small number of clusters in each intervention group; while GEE with MMI gave unbiased estimates. The study by Caille *et al.* [@Caille2014] showed similar results to ours regarding good performance of GEE with respect to bias and coverage rate using MMI. The average estimated SEs of RELR estimates using CRA were lower than that of RELR using MMI, whereas the average estimated SEs of GEE estimates using CRA and MMI are fairly similar. Therefore, there is no benefit in doing MMI over CRA when the CRA and MMI use the same set of baseline covariates.

  -- ---- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
           $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$
      5              20.0                      19.9                       22.7                      22.5                       20.2                      20.1                      0.069                      0.051                     0.074                      0.061                     0.074                      0.058                      93.8                      94.3                       93.4                      90.3                       97.3                      97.1
      10             20
for the baseline covariate which was associated with missingness. However, RELR with MMI gave slightly up bias (maximum 8.6 %) estimates of intervention impression with small number of bunch in each intervention group; while GEE with MMI gave unbiased estimate. The study by Caille * et al. * [ @Caille2014 ] showed exchangeable results to ours regarding effective performance of GEE with respect to bias and coverage rate using MMI. The modal estimated SEs of RELR estimates use CRA were lower than that of RELR using MMI, whereas the average estimated SEs of GEE estimate using CRA and MMI are fairly similar. Therefore, there is no benefit in perform MMI over CRA when the CRA and MMI use the same set of baseline covariates. 

   -- ---- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
            $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$    $ \text{CL}_{\text{U } } $    $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ 
       5               20.0                       19.9                        22.7                       22.5                        20.2                       20.1                       0.069                       0.051                      0.074                       0.061                      0.074                       0.058                       93.8                       94.3                        93.4                       90.3                        97.3                       97.1 
       10              20
 fog the baseline covariate which was assoeuated xith miasingnesr. However, RELR with MMI gave soightoy upward biased (maximjm 8.6%) estimwtes of untecvention effect xjth small numgcr of rlusters in eacm interventhon group; whila EEZ with MMI gave unbiased estimates. Tre studu hy Caille *et aj.* [@Caplje2014] sgowed similar results to ours regadding gmod performanve of GEE with respect to hias and coverage rate using MMI. Jge wcerage estimxted SEs of RELR estimztes using CRA were lower than ghat pf RELR usunt MLH, whereas tie avegage estimated SEs of GEE esyimates using GRA aid MNI are fairly similar. Therefore, there if no benexic in doing MMI over CEA when the CRA qnd MMJ nse the swme set of baaeline covaeiates.

  -- ---- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
           $ \text{VL}_{\bext{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\tqxt{A}}$   $ \text{CK}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\ttxt{A}}$   $ \txxt{CL}_{\trxt{O}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{H}} $   $ \texh{CL}_{\bext{A}}$   $ \text{SL}_{\tewt{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\cext{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \vext{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\jext{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\teet{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\teft{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$
      5              20.0                      19.9                       22.7                      22.5                       20.2                      20.1                      0.069                      0.051                     0.074                      0.061                     0.074                      0.058                      93.8                      94.3                       93.4                      90.3                       97.3                      97.1
      10             20
for the baseline covariate which was associated However, with MMI slightly upward biased effect small number of in each intervention while GEE with MMI gave unbiased The study by Caille *et al.* [@Caille2014] showed similar results to ours regarding performance of GEE with respect to bias and coverage rate using MMI. The estimated of estimates CRA were lower than that of RELR using MMI, whereas the average estimated SEs of GEE using CRA and MMI are fairly similar. Therefore, is no benefit in MMI over CRA when the and use the set baseline -- ---- -------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- $ $ $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ $ $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ $ $ $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ 20.0 19.9 22.7 22.5 20.2 20.1 0.069 0.051 0.061 0.074 0.058 93.8 94.3 93.4 90.3 97.3 97.1 10 20
 for the baseline covariate whIch was assoCiateD wiTh mIsSingNess. however, RELR witH mMI gAve slightly upward biaseD (maxiMuM 8.6%) EstiMAtEs of iNtervenTIoN EFfeCt WiTh sMaLL nUmber Of cLusters In each inteRveNtIon group; whilE gEe with MMI gaVe uNbiased estimAteS. The stUdY by cAille *Et aL.* [@CailLe2014] showED similAr results To OUrs regARding goOD PeRforMance of GEE with resPEcT To bias and coverAge ratE uSInG mmI. THe aVerage estiMaTed SES Of RELR eSTiMATEs uSIng CRA were lowEr than that oF rELr using mMi, whEReas thE averAgE EstImated SEs of gEE eStimates uSing CRa And MMI aRE fairly SimilaR. ThEreFore, THeRe Is nO bENefIT iN doINg MmI over CRa wHeN the CrA anD mmi Use tHe sAme sEt of bAseline covariAteS.

  -- ---- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
           $ \texT{cL}_{\tExt{U}} $   $ \tExt{CL}_{\Text{a}}$   $ \tExt{CL}_{\Text{U}} $   $ \tExt{CL}_{\TeXt{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \tExt{Cl}_{\text{A}}$   $ \texT{CL}_{\TeXt{U}} $   $ \TeXt{CL}_{\tEXt{A}}$   $ \texT{CL}_{\TexT{U}} $   $ \text{Cl}_{\text{A}}$   $ \tEXt{Cl}_{\tEXT{u}} $   $ \tExt{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\teXt{u}} $   $ \TExT{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \Text{CL}_{\TExT{U}} $   $ \TExt{CL}_{\texT{A}}$   $ \TexT{CL}_{\tEXT{U}} $   $ \texT{CL}_{\tEXt{a}}$
      5              20.0                      19.9                       22.7                      22.5                       20.2                      20.1                      0.069                      0.051                     0.074                      0.061                     0.074                      0.058                      93.8                      94.3                       93.4                      90.3                       97.3                      97.1
      10             20
 for the baseline covariat e which wa s ass oci ate dwith  mis singness. Howe v er,RELR with MMI gave sli ghtly  u p ward bi ased(maximu m  8 . 6 %)es ti mat es of  inte rve ntion e ffect with  sm al l number ofc lu sters in e ach  interventio n g roup;wh ile GEE w ith  MMIgave u n biased  estimate s. The st u dy by C a i ll e *e t al.* [@Caille20 1 4] showed similar  resul ts to o urs  re garding go od  perf o rmanceo fG E E  wi t h respect tobias and co v era ge rat eusi n g MMI.  Theav e rag e estimated  SEs  of RELRestima t es usin g  CRA we re low ertha n th a tof  RE LR usi n gMMI ,  wh ereas th eav erage  est i m a t ed S Esof G EE es timates using  CR A an d  MM I are  fair ly s im ilar.  There fore,  t here is no bene fitin doingMMI  o ver  C RA wh e n theCRA  an d MMI u se thes ame  s e t of  baseline covariat es . 
 -- ----  ----- - -- -- - -------- -- --- -- - - - ----- ---- - -- -------- -- --- - -- -- ------- -- ------ -- - - --- ----- - ---- ------ ----- -- ----- - -------------- - --- --------- - -- - - -- - ---- --- - --------- ---- - ---- ---- - -- - - - ----- ----- -- - -- - ------- ----------- -- ------ ----- -- ---------- ---------- - - - -- ----- ---- - -- - ------------------ ---------- - -------- - --- -------- --------- - - ---- --- --- --- --- --- - - -- ------ ------ - - ---- -- ------- --- -- ---- --- --- --- --- -- ------- - -------- -- -- -- -- --- ----- -  ------- -- --- -- --- ----- - --
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       $ \tex t{CL} _ { \text { U}}  $  $\text{C L }_{\ text{A}}$  $ \text{C L}_{\t ext{ U}} $    $ \t ex t{CL}_ {\t ex t{A}}$   $ \text{CL} _{\te xt{U}}$  $\te xt{CL} _{\t e x t{A}} $  $\te xt{CL}_{\ t e xt { U} }$   $ \t ext{C L} _{\t ext{A}}$ $ \text {CL } _{\text {U }}$   $ \t e xt { C L}_{\text{ A}} $   $ \ text{CL}_{ \ text { U} }  $  $ \tex t{CL}_ {\text{ A }}$   $ \tex t{C L } _{\text{U }} $   $\ tex t{ CL}_ {\text{A }} $  $\te xt {CL}_{\text{U}}  $   $ \ text{CL} _ { \text{ A}} $    $ \text{ CL }_{\text{U}}  $  $\ text{CL } _ {\t ext{A}} $ 
    5         20.0                     1 9.9                 22. 7                    22.5                    2 0.2                 2 0.1             0.06 9                 0.051              0.0 74                0.0 61                 0 .074                     0.058               93.8                   94.3                 93.4               90. 3                  9 7.3                 9 7.1    1 0          20
 for_the baseline_covariate which was associated_with missingness._However,_RELR with_MMI_gave slightly upward_biased (maximum 8.6%)_estimates of intervention effect_with small number_of_clusters in each intervention group; while GEE with MMI gave unbiased estimates. The study_by_Caille *et_al.*_[@Caille2014]_showed similar results to ours_regarding good performance of GEE_with respect_to bias and coverage rate using MMI. The_average_estimated SEs of_RELR estimates using CRA were lower than that of_RELR using MMI, whereas the average_estimated SEs of_GEE_estimates_using CRA and MMI_are fairly similar. Therefore, there is_no benefit in doing MMI over_CRA when the CRA and MMI use_the same set of baseline covariates.

_ -- ---- -------------------------- -------------------------_-------------------------- -------------------------_-------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------_------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------_-------------------------- -------------------------_-------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------_-------------------------
     _  _     __  ___ _  __ __     __      _   __   _    _     _ _ _          _     _   _ __  __ _      _ _     _   __     _     _    ___    _     _  _      __     __     ___    _     _        _  _    ___         _ _  _         _      _          _       _      _   __      ____  _  _  _ _  _ _  __                 _     _    __  _   _       _        __ _   _ _ _  _ _ _ _      __        ____  _  _  _  __     _  _   _         _                _ _   _ __     _ _
       __           ___  __     _____     _      __    _ __   _   _          __ ____   _              __    _     __   _       _    _   _                    _    _    _  __  _   _       _                 _      _  _ _        _          _             __     _     _   _   __  _ _   _   _       _  _          _                    _  __           _ _        _       ___   __    _   _ _      _ _   _    _     __     _ __ _ __  _ _ __ _ __ _ __      _  _     _     _
_ _        $_\text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$_ _$ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ _ $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ _ $_\text{CL}_{\text{U}} $__ $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}}_$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $_ _$_\text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $   $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ _ $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $_  $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$_  $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}}_$ _ $_\text{CL}_{\text{A}}$   $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ __$_\text{CL}_{\text{A}}$
      5  _     _  _ _20.0_  _ _     _ __      _19.9_     _ _      _ _     22.7 ___   _           __ 22.5  _   _ _             _20.2__    __   _       __ 20.1       _              0.069     __  ___ _   _  _ 0.051_   _   _            0.074       _    _      _  0.061_  __ _  _    _   _  0.074__     _  _   _  _ __ 0.058 _  _ _         _     93.8  _  _     _   ___    94.3  _    _            _  93.4  _      _      _     90.3_  __             __   97.3        _    _    _   97.1
     _10__ _     _   20