Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679584›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of epidemiology2022

Sample size calculators for planning stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: a review and comparison.

Yongdong Ouyang, Fan Li, John S Preisser, Monica Taljaard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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.

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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Sample size requirements and intra-cluster correlations for stepped wedge cluster randomised trials in intensive care medicine: A practical guide.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Serosurvey ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    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.

Yongdong OuyangClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8692-2991
Fan LiDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6183-1893
John S PreisserDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

Training Core (I)U54AG063546 · NIA · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI JOSEPH E. GAUGLER · 2019 to 2026
$125.9M
Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
CIHRNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs). SW-CRTs include several design variations and methodology is rapidly developing. Accordingly, a variety of power and sample size calculation software for SW-CRTs has been developed. However, each calculator may support only a selected set of design features and may not be appropriate for all scenarios. Currently, there is no resource to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate calculator for planning their trials. In this paper, we review and classify 18 existing calculators that can be implemented in major platforms, such as R, SAS, Stata, Microsoft Excel, PASS and nQuery. After reviewing the main sample size considerations for SW-CRTs, we summarize the features supported by the available calculators, including the types of designs, outcomes, correlation structures and treatment effects; whether incomplete designs, cluster-size variation or secular trends are accommodated; and the analytical approach used. We then discuss in more detail four main calculators and identify their strengths and limitations. We illustrate how to use these four calculators to compute power for two real SW-CRTs with a continuous and binary outcome and compare the results. We show that the choice of calculator can make a substantial difference in the calculated power and explain these differences. Finally, we make recommendations for implementing sample size or power calculations using the available calculators. An R Shiny app is available for users to select the calculator that meets their requirements (https://douyang.shinyapps.io/swcrtcalculator/).

Indexed as

Research DesignCluster AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample Sizecorrelation structurespowersample sizesoftwareStepped-wedge design

Identifiers

PMID35679584
PMCPMC9749719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.