Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33726711›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Accounting for confounding by time, early intervention adoption, and time-varying effect modification in the design and analysis of stepped-wedge designs: application to a proposed study design to reduce opioid-related mortality.

Lior Rennert, Moonseong Heo, Alain H Litwin, Victor De Gruttola

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Evaluation of injury prevention interventions using the stepped wedge cluster randomised trial design: key considerations.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lior RennertDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, USA. liorr@clemson.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5275-7273
Moonseong HeoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, USA.
Alain H LitwinUniversity of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, SC, USA.
Victor De GruttolaDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, USA.
Clemson University · USHarvard University · USPrisma Health · US

Funding

Intensive Models of HCV Care for Injection Drug UsersR01DA034086 · NIDA · CLEMSON UNIVERSITY · PI LITWIN, ALAIN HARRIS · 2012 to 2016
$3.7M
Methods to Advance the HIV Prevention Research AgendaR37AI051164 · NIAID · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI DEGRUTTOLA, VICTOR GERARD · 2012 to 2019
$3.3M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034086NIDA NIH HHS R01DA034086Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute HPC-1503-28122
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBeginning in 2019, stepped-wedge designs (SWDs) were being used in the investigation of interventions to reduce opioid-related deaths in communities across the United States. However, these interventions are competing with external factors such as newly initiated public policies limiting opioid prescriptions, media awareness campaigns, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, control communities may prematurely adopt components of the intervention as they become available. The presence of time-varying external factors that impact study outcomes is a well-known limitation of SWDs; common approaches to adjusting for them make use of a mixed effects modeling framework. However, these models have several shortcomings when external factors differentially impact intervention and control clusters.

methodsWe discuss limitations of commonly used mixed effects models in the context of proposed SWDs to investigate interventions intended to reduce opioid-related mortality, and propose extensions of these models to address these limitations. We conduct an extensive simulation study of anticipated data from SWD trials targeting the current opioid epidemic in order to examine the performance of these models in the presence of external factors. We consider confounding by time, premature adoption of intervention components, and time-varying effect modification- in which external factors differentially impact intervention and control clusters.

resultsIn the presence of confounding by time, commonly used mixed effects models yield unbiased intervention effect estimates, but can have inflated Type 1 error and result in under coverage of confidence intervals. These models yield biased intervention effect estimates when premature intervention adoption or effect modification are present. In such scenarios, models incorporating fixed intervention-by-time interactions with an unstructured covariance for intervention-by-cluster-by-time random effects result in unbiased intervention effect estimates, reach nominal confidence interval coverage, and preserve Type 1 error.

conclusionsMixed effects models can adjust for different combinations of external factors through correct specification of fixed and random time effects. Since model choice has considerable impact on validity of results and study power, careful consideration must be given to how these external factors impact study endpoints and what estimands are most appropriate in the presence of such factors.

Indexed as

Cross-Over StudiesEarly Medical InterventionModels, BiologicalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignComputer SimulationEpidemicsHumansOpioid-Related DisordersOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRandom AllocationTime FactorsAnalysisCluster randomized trialsConfoundingCOVID-19EpidemicOpioidsPandemicSecular trendsStepped wedge designStudy design

Identifiers

PMID33726711
PMCPMC7962436
OpenAlexW3137620464

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.