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
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 12 | 41% |
Canada | 2 | 7% |
Singapore | 1 | 3% |
United States | 1 | 3% |
Japan | 1 | 3% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Portugal | 1 | 3% |
Germany | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 16 | 55% |
Scientists | 8 | 28% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
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% |