Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40277400›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

Identifying Less Burdensome and More Cost-Efficient Incomplete Stepped Wedge Designs for Continuous Outcomes Collected via Repeated Cross-Sections.

Ehsan Rezaei-Darzi, Jessica Kasza, Anisa R Assifi, Danielle Mazza, Andrew B Forbes, Kelsey L Grantham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Ehsan Rezaei-DarziSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4198-6131
Jessica KaszaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8940-0136
Anisa R AssifiSPHERE NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence, Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5295-4074
Danielle MazzaSPHERE NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence, Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6158-7376
Andrew B ForbesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4269-914X
Kelsey L GranthamSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5288-611X

Funding

Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) ScholarshipAustralian Trials Methodology (AusTriM) Research Network supplementary scholarshipThe Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP210101398
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stepped wedge trials can be costly and burdensome. Recent work has investigated the iterative removal of cluster-period cells from stepped wedge designs, producing a series of candidate incomplete designs that are less burdensome. We propose a novel way to explore the space of incomplete stepped wedge designs, by considering their cost efficiency, seeking to identify designs that retain high power while limiting the total trial cost. We define the cost efficiency of a design as the ratio of the precision of the treatment effect estimator to the total trial cost. Total trial cost incorporates the costs per cluster, costs per participant in intervention and control conditions, and the costs of restarting data collection in a cluster under intervention and control conditions following a pause. We consider linear mixed models for continuous outcomes with a repeated cross-sectional sampling scheme and use an iterative procedure to remove individual cells with the lowest contribution to the cost efficiency metric, producing a series of progressively reduced designs. We define the optimal design within this design space as that which maximizes the cost efficiency relative to the complete design, subject to a minimum acceptable power constraint. We illustrate our methods with an example motivated by a real-world trial. Our methods enable trialists to identify incomplete stepped wedge designs that are less burdensome and more cost-efficient than complete designs. We find that "staircase"-type designs, where clusters only contribute measurements immediately before and after the treatment switch, are often particularly cost-efficient variants of the stepped wedge design.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLinear Modelscluster randomized trialcost efficiency frameworkoptimizationrepeated cross‐sectionalstaircase design

Identifiers

PMID40277400
PMCPMC12023839

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.