Report for: The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review

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	The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review
Published in	BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2006
DOI	10.1186/1471-2288-6-54
Pubmed ID	17092344
Authors	Celia A Brown, Richard J Lilford
Abstract	Stepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date.

View on publisher site Alert me about new mentions

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Geographical breakdown

Country	Count	As %
United States	13	31%
United Kingdom	9	21%
Canada	6	14%
Dominican Republic	1	2%
Norway	1	2%
Netherlands	1	2%
Cuba	1	2%
Unknown	10	24%

Demographic breakdown

Type	Count	As %
Members of the public	21	50%
Scientists	16	38%
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals)	4	10%
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors)	1	2%

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 818 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country	Count	As %
United States	22	3%
United Kingdom	11	1%
India	4	<1%
Australia	4	<1%
Germany	3	<1%
Netherlands	3	<1%
Switzerland	2	<1%
New Zealand	2	<1%
Canada	2	<1%
Other	15	2%
Unknown	750	92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status	Count	As %
Researcher	205	25%
Student > Ph. D. Student	133	16%
Student > Master	97	12%
Other	67	8%
Professor > Associate Professor	53	6%
Other	189	23%
Unknown	74	9%

Readers by discipline	Count	As %
Medicine and Dentistry	307	38%
Social Sciences	101	12%
Psychology	62	8%
Nursing and Health Professions	53	6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences	38	5%
Other	139	17%
Unknown	118	14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2021.

All research outputs

#641,192

of 21,238,480 outputs

Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology

#61

of 1,895 outputs

Outputs of similar age

#3,121

of 142,183 outputs

Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology

of 1 outputs

Altmetric has tracked 21,238,480 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.

So far Altmetric has tracked 1,895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.

Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 142,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.

We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them

The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review

About this Attention Score

Mentioned by

Citations

Readers on

Twitter Demographics

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Mendeley readers

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Attention Score in Context