↓ Skip to main content

The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
42 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
663 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
818 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
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
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.

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.

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
#1
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