SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2021
Health Economic Evaluation Alongside Stepped Wedge Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A cost-consequence analysis of a nudge intervention to improve hospital care of older people at the end of life: results from a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.Age and ageing · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the SHaPED trial testing a multifaceted implementation strategy of a model of care to improve emergency department care of low back pain.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- Article
- Frailty in older people: Rehabilitation Treatment Research Examining Separate Settings (FORTRESS): protocol for a hybrid type II stepped wedge, cluster, randomised trial.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of an Exercise Programme That Provided Group or Individual Training to Reduce the Fall Risk in Healthy Community-Dwelling People Aged 65-80: A Secondary Data Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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
backgroundRecently, there has been an increase in use of the stepped wedge trial (SWT) design in the context of health services research, due to its pragmatic and methodological advantages over the parallel group design.
objectiveOur objective was to summarise the statistical methods used when conducting economic evaluations alongside SWTs.
methodsA systematic literature search extending to February 2020 was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) databases to find and evaluate studies where there was an intention to conduct an economic evaluation alongside an SWT. Studies were assessed for their eligibility, findings, reporting of statistical methods and quality of reporting.
resultsOf the 586 studies retrieved from the literature search, 69 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. A total of 54 studies were published protocols, with eight economic evaluations and seven studies reporting full trial results. Included studies varied in terms of their reporting of statistical methods, in both detail and methodology. There were 34 studies that did not report any statistical methods for the economic evaluation, and only 16 studies reported appropriate methods, mainly using some form of mixed/multilevel model, and two used seemingly unrelated regression. Twelve studies reported the use of generic bootstrap methods and other modelling techniques, whilst the remaining studies failed to appropriately account for clustering, correlation or adjustment for time.
conclusionsThe use of appropriate statistical methods that account for time, clustering and correlation between costs and outcomes is an important part of SWT health economics analysis, one that will benefit from an effort to communicate the methods available and their performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33015754What 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.