↓ Skip to main content

Stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: a review of the statistical methodology used and available

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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 randomised trials: a review of the statistical methodology used and available
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0176-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Barker, P. McElduff, C. D’Este, M. J. Campbell

Abstract

Previous reviews have focussed on the rationale for employing the stepped wedge design (SWD), the areas of research to which the design has been applied and the general characteristics of the design. However these did not focus on the statistical methods nor addressed the appropriateness of sample size methods used.This was a review of the literature of the statistical methodology used in stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. Literature Review. The Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched for methodological guides and RCTs which employed the stepped wedge design. This review identified 102 trials which employed the stepped wedge design compared to 37 from the most recent review by Beard et al. 2015. Forty six trials were cohort designs and 45 % (n = 46) had fewer than 10 clusters. Of the 42 articles discussing the design methodology 10 covered analysis and seven covered sample size. For cohort stepped wedge designs there was only one paper considering analysis and one considering sample size methods. Most trials employed either a GEE or mixed model approach to analysis (n = 77) but only 22 trials (22 %) estimated sample size in a way which accounted for the stepped wedge design that was subsequently used. Many studies which employ the stepped wedge design have few clusters but use methods of analysis which may require more clusters for unbiased and efficient intervention effect estimates. There is the need for research on the minimum number of clusters required for both types of stepped wedge design. Researchers should distinguish in the sample size calculation between cohort and cross sectional stepped wedge designs. Further research is needed on the effect of adjusting for the potential confounding of time on the study power.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 15%
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 11 5%
Other 45 22%
Unknown 58 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Mathematics 10 5%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 34 16%
Unknown 65 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,471,006
of 24,284,650 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,376
of 2,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,284
of 346,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,284,650 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 346,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.