Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28279222›Full record

ArticleTrials2017

Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study.

Daniel Barker, Catherine D'Este, Michael J Campbell, Patrick McElduff

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04762303 (Spread and Scale of a Polypharmacy App to Improve Health Outcomes of Older Adults Living in New Brunswick Nursing Homes), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT04762303 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Spread and Scale of a Polypharmacy App to Improve Health Outcomes of Older Adults Living in New Brunswick Nursing Homes: an Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Type 2 Study Design for a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre for Innovation and Research in Aging, CanadaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled1,000ConditionsPolypharmacy, Deprescribing, Adverse Drug EventArmsMedReviewRx
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

4 authors.

Daniel BarkerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. daniel.barker@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9707-4465
Catherine D'EsteSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Michael J CampbellMedical Statistics Group, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Patrick McElduffSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStepped wedge cluster randomised trials frequently involve a relatively small number of clusters. The most common frameworks used to analyse data from these types of trials are generalised estimating equations and generalised linear mixed models. A topic of much research into these methods has been their application to cluster randomised trial data and, in particular, the number of clusters required to make reasonable inferences about the intervention effect. However, for stepped wedge trials, which have been claimed by many researchers to have a statistical power advantage over the parallel cluster randomised trial, the minimum number of clusters required has not been investigated.

methodsWe conducted a simulation study where we considered the most commonly used methods suggested in the literature to analyse cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trial data. We compared the per cent bias, the type I error rate and power of these methods in a stepped wedge trial setting with a binary outcome, where there are few clusters available and when the appropriate adjustment for a time trend is made, which by design may be confounding the intervention effect.

resultsWe found that the generalised linear mixed modelling approach is the most consistent when few clusters are available. We also found that none of the common analysis methods for stepped wedge trials were both unbiased and maintained a 5% type I error rate when there were only three clusters.

conclusionsOf the commonly used analysis approaches, we recommend the generalised linear mixed model for small stepped wedge trials with binary outcomes. We also suggest that in a stepped wedge design with three steps, at least two clusters be randomised at each step, to ensure that the intervention effect estimator maintains the nominal 5% significance level and is also reasonably unbiased.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationEndpoint DeterminationResearch DesignBiasCluster AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLinear ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCluster randomisedCross sectionalSimulation studyStatistical analysisStepped wedge

Identifiers

PMID28279222
PMCPMC5345156

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.