Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35137437›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2022

Model misspecification in stepped wedge trials: Random effects for time or treatment.

Emily C Voldal, Fan Xia, Avi Kenny, Patrick J Heagerty, James P Hughes

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Random effect misspecification in stepped wedge designs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022
    Trial
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily C VoldalDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6286-3982
Fan XiaDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2435-794X
Avi KennyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9465-7307
Patrick J HeagertyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3403-6007
James P HughesDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5034-3157
University of Washington · US

Funding

STATISTICAL ISSUES IN AIDS RESEARCHR37AI029168 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JAMES P HUGHES · 1999 to 2026
$9.8M
STATISTICAL ISSUES IN AIDS RESEARCHR01AI029168 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HUGHES, JAMES P · 1989 to 2018
$5.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI029168NIAID NIH HHS R37 AI029168NIH HHS AI29168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mixed models are commonly used to analyze stepped wedge trials (SWTs) to account for clustering and repeated measures on clusters. One critical issue researchers face is whether to include a random time effect or a random treatment effect. When the wrong model is chosen, inference on the treatment effect may be invalid. We explore asymptotic and finite-sample convergence of variance component estimates when the model is misspecified and how misspecification affects the estimated variance of the treatment effect. For asymptotic results, we rely on analytical solutions rather than simulation studies, which allow us to succinctly describe the convergence of misspecified estimates, even though there are multiple roots for each misspecified model. We found that both direction and magnitude of the bias associated with model-based standard errors depends on the study design and magnitude of the true variance components. We identify some scenarios in which choosing the wrong random effect has a large impact on model-based inference. However, many trends depend on trial design and assumptions about the true correlation structure, so we provide tools for researchers to investigate specific scenarios of interest. We use data from an SWT on disinvesting from weekend services in hospital wards to demonstrate how these results can be applied as a sensitivity analysis, which quantifies the impact of misspecification under a variety of settings and directly compares the potential consequences of different modeling choices. Our results will provide guidance for prespecified model choices and supplement sensitivity analyses to inform confidence in the validity of results.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiasCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationHumansmodel misspecificationmodel selectionrandom effectsstepped wedgevariance estimation

Identifiers

PMID35137437
PMCPMC9007853
OpenAlexW4211012944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.