↓ Skip to main content

Stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial designs: a review of reporting quality and design features

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
29 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial designs: a review of reporting quality and design features
Published in
Trials, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1783-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Grayling, James M. S. Wason, Adrian P. Mander

Abstract

The stepped wedge (SW) cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) design is being used with increasing frequency. However, there is limited published research on the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. We address this issue by conducting a literature review. Medline, Ovid, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, the ISRCTN registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify investigations employing the SW-CRCT design up to February 2015. For each included completed study, information was extracted on a selection of criteria, based on the CONSORT extension to CRCTs, to assess the quality of reporting. A total of 123 studies were included in our review, of which 39 were completed trial reports. The standard of reporting of SW-CRCTs varied in quality. The percentage of trials reporting each criterion varied to as low as 15.4%, with a median of 66.7%. There is much room for improvement in the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. This is consistent with recent findings for CRCTs. A CONSORT extension for SW-CRCTs is warranted to standardize the reporting of SW-CRCTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Professor 8 8%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 38%
Mathematics 9 9%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 24 23%