↓ Skip to main content

Analysis and reporting of stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: synthesis and critical appraisal of published studies, 2010 to 2014

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Analysis and reporting of stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: synthesis and critical appraisal of published studies, 2010 to 2014
Published in
Trials, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0838-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Calum Davey, James Hargreaves, Jennifer A Thompson, Andrew J Copas, Emma Beard, James J Lewis, Katherine L Fielding

Abstract

Stepped wedge cluster randomised trials introduce interventions to groups of clusters in a random order and have been used to evaluate interventions for health and wellbeing. Standardised guidance for reporting stepped wedge trials is currently absent, and a range of potential analytic approaches have been described. We systematically identified and reviewed recently published (2010 to 2014) analyses of stepped wedge trials. We extracted data and described the range of reporting and analysis approaches taken across all studies. We critically appraised the strategy described by three trials chosen to reflect a range of design characteristics. Ten reports of completed analyses were identified. Reporting varied: seven of the studies included a CONSORT diagram, and only five also included a diagram of the intervention rollout. Seven assessed the balance achieved by randomisation, and there was considerable heterogeneity among the approaches used. Only six reported the trend in the outcome over time. All used both 'horizontal' and 'vertical' information to estimate the intervention effect: eight adjusted for time with a fixed effect, one used time as a condition using a Cox proportional hazards model, and one did not account for time trends. The majority used simple random effects to account for clustering and repeat measures, assuming a common intervention effect across clusters. Outcome data from before and after the rollout period were often included in the primary analysis. Potential lags in the outcome response to the intervention were rarely investigated. We use three case studies to illustrate different approaches to analysis and reporting. There is considerable heterogeneity in the reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. Correct specification of the time-trend underlies the validity of the analytical approaches. The possibility that intervention effects vary by cluster or over time should be considered. Further work should be done to standardise the reporting of the design, attrition, balance, and time-trends in stepped wedge trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Sudan 1 <1%
Unknown 145 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Master 15 10%
Other 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 30 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 30%
Social Sciences 15 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Mathematics 9 6%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 39 26%