Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26247569›Full record

ReviewContemporary clinical trials2015

Current issues in the design and analysis of stepped wedge trials.

James P Hughes, Tanya S Granston, Patrick J Heagerty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Contemporary clinical trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Random effect misspecification in stepped wedge designs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Evaluation of injury prevention interventions using the stepped wedge cluster randomised trial design: key considerations.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

James P HughesDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: jphughes@u.washington.edu.
Tanya S GranstonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Patrick J HeagertyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Funding

STATISTICAL ISSUES IN AIDS RESEARCHR37AI029168 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JAMES P HUGHES · 1999 to 2026
$9.8M
STATISTICAL ISSUES IN AIDS RESEARCHR01AI029168 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HUGHES, JAMES P · 1989 to 2018
$5.3M
NIAID NIH HHS AI29168NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI029168NIAID NIH HHS R37 AI029168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of stepped wedge designs in cluster-randomized trials and implementation studies has increased rapidly in recent years but there remains considerable debate regarding the merits of the design. We discuss three key issues in the design and analysis of stepped wedge trials - time-on-treatment effects, treatment effect heterogeneity and cohort studies.

Indexed as

Research DesignCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsCluster randomized trialImplementation researchStepped wedge design

Identifiers

PMID26247569
PMCPMC4639463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.