Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26279013›Full record

ArticleTrials2015

Five questions to consider before conducting a stepped wedge trial.

James R Hargreaves, Andrew J Copas, Emma Beard, David Osrin, James J Lewis, Calum Davey, Jennifer A Thompson, Gianluca Baio, Katherine L Fielding, Audrey Prost

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04915027 (Rehabkompassen® - a Novel Digital Tool for Facilitating Patient-tailored Rehabilitation in the Post-acute Continuum of Care After Stroke - A Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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.

NCT04915027 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Rehabkompassen® - a Novel Digital Tool for Facilitating Patient-tailored Rehabilitation in the Post-acute Continuum of Care After Stroke - A Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUmeå UniversityRan2020 to 2027Enrolled1,106ConditionsStrokeArmsa usual follow-up with Rehabkompassen®, a usual follow-up with Post-Stroke Checklist, i.e. without Rehabkompassen®
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 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. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Cluster-Randomized Trials in Emergency Care Research.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

James R HargreavesDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. james.hargreaves@lshtm.ac.uk.
Andrew J CopasMRC Clinical Trials Unit, 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.
David OsrinInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. d.osrin@ucl.ac.uk.
James J LewisDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. James.Lewis@lshtm.ac.uk.
Calum DaveyDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. calum.davey@lshtm.ac.uk.
Jennifer A ThompsonDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Jennifer.Thompson@lshtm.ac.uk.
Gianluca BaioDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK. g.baio@ucl.ac.uk.
Katherine L FieldingDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Katherine.Fielding@lshtm.ac.uk.
Audrey ProstInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. A.Prost@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29Medical Research Council MR/K007467/1Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1-P27Wellcome Trust 091561Wellcome Trust 100714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers should consider five questions before starting a stepped wedge trial. Why are you planning one? Researchers sometimes think that stepped wedge trials are useful when there is little doubt about the benefit of the intervention being tested. However, if the primary reason for an intervention is to measure its effect, without equipoise there is no ethical justification for delaying implementation in some clusters. By contrast, if you are undertaking pragmatic research, where the primary reason for rolling out the intervention is for it to exert its benefits, and if phased implementation is inevitable, a stepped wedge trial is a valid option and provides better evidence than most non-randomized evaluations. What design will you use? Two common stepped wedge designs are based on the recruitment of a closed or open cohort. In both, individuals may experience both control and intervention conditions and you should be concerned about carry-over effects. In a third, continuous-recruitment, short-exposure design, individuals are recruited as they become eligible and experience either control or intervention condition, but not both. How will you conduct the primary analysis? In stepped wedge trials, control of confounding factors through secular variation is essential. 'Vertical' approaches preserve randomization and compare outcomes between randomized groups within periods. 'Horizontal' approaches compare outcomes before and after crossover to the intervention condition. Most analysis models used in practice combine both types of comparison. The appropriate analytic strategy should be considered on a case-by-case basis. How large will your trial be? Standard sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials do not accommodate the specific features of stepped wedge trials. Methods exist for many stepped wedge designs, but simulation-based calculations provide the greatest flexibility. In some scenarios, such as when the intracluster correlation coefficient is moderate or high, or the cluster size is large, a stepped wedge trial may require fewer clusters than a parallel cluster trial. How will you report your trial? Stepped wedge trials are currently challenging to report using CONSORT principles. Researchers should consider how to demonstrate balance achieved by randomization and how to describe trends for outcomes in both intervention and control clusters.

Indexed as

Research DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalEndpoint DeterminationHumansModels, StatisticalPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26279013
PMCPMC4538743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.