Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26278667›Full record

ReviewTrials2015

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

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

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. BMJ open · 2018
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

7 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

7 authors.

Calum DaveyDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. calum.davey@lshtm.ac.uk.
James HargreavesDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. James.Hargreaves@lshtm.ac.uk.
Jennifer A ThompsonDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Jennifer.Thompson@lshtm.ac.uk.
Andrew J CopasLondon Hub for Trials Methodology Research, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK. a.copas@ucl.ac.uk.
Emma BeardDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK. e.beard@ucl.ac.uk.
James J LewisDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. James.Lewis@lshtm.ac.uk.
Katherine L FieldingDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Katherine.Fielding@lshtm.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29Medical Research Council MR/K007467/1Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1-P27
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStepped 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsTen 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.

conclusionsThere 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.

Indexed as

Research DesignCluster AnalysisData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansPatient SelectionProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26278667
PMCPMC4538923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.