ArticleTrials2017
Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study.
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.
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.
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.
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
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a Novel Electric Health Record Sidecar Application to Display Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Outcomes During Clinic Visits: Results of a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Trial.Arthritis care & research · 2026Trial
- Divergent confidence intervals among pre-specified analyses in the HiSTORIC stepped wedge trial: An exploratory post-hoc investigation.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Effect of hands-on interprofessional simulation training for local emergencies in Scotland: the THISTLE stepped-wedge design randomised controlled trial.BMJ quality & safety · 2020Trial
- Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial.Health research policy and systems · 2019Trial
- Comparing meta-analysis and linear mixed model-based approaches for the analysis of continuous outcomes from batched stepped wedge trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- An Aboriginal community-led approach to reducing alcohol-related harm: A multiple baseline, stepped wedge evaluation.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Nurse-led risk-based primary healthcare intervention in midlife women's health management in Hong Kong: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches to the Personalised Randomised Controlled Trial (PRACTical)-design and analysis considerations.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- A review of current practice in the design and analysis of extremely small stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Power calculation for detecting interaction effect in cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: an important tool for disparity research.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Article
- A multi-dimensional incomplete stepped-wedge trial design to estimate the impact of standards-based audit.PloS one · 2023Article
- Co-creation using crowdsourcing to promote PrEP adherence in China: study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a community-based integrated care model compared with usual care for older adults with complex needs: a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.Integrated healthcare journal · 2022Article
- Ignoring Clustering and Nesting in Cluster Randomized Trials Renders Conclusions Unverifiable [Response to Letter].Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Article
- Power calculation for analyses of cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes via generalized estimating equations.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.