Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41721421›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Factors affecting power in stepped wedge trials when the treatment effect varies with time.

Avi Kenny, Emily C Voldal, Fan Xia, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan, Patrick J Heagerty, James P Hughes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Avi KennyDepartment of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. avi.kenny@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9465-7307
Emily C VoldalVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Fan XiaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kwun Chuen Gary ChanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Patrick J HeagertyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
James P HughesDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases R37AI029168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) have historically been analyzed using immediate treatment (IT) models, which assume the effect of the treatment is immediate after treatment initiation and subsequently remains constant over time. However, recent research has shown that this assumption can lead to severely misleading results if treatment effects vary with exposure time, i.e., time since the intervention started. Models that account for time-varying treatment effects, such as the exposure time indicator (ETI) model, allow researchers to target estimands such as the time-averaged treatment effect (TATE) over an interval of exposure time, or the point treatment effect (PTE) representing a treatment contrast at one time point. However, this increased flexibility results in reduced power.

methodsIn this paper, we use public power calculation software and simulation to characterize factors affecting SW-CRT power. Key elements include choice of estimand, study design considerations, and analysis model selection.

resultsFor common SW-CRT designs, the sample size (clusters per sequence or individuals per cluster-period) must be increased substantially, commonly by a factor of 1.5 to 3, but often by much more, to maintain 90% power when switching from an IT model to an ETI model (targeting the TATE over the study). However, the inflation factor is lower for TATE estimands over shorter periods that exclude longer exposure times. In general, SW-CRT designs (including the "staircase" variant) have much greater power for estimating "short-term effects" relative to "long-term effects." For an ETI model targeting a TATE estimand, substantial power can be gained by adding time points to the start of the study or increasing baseline sample size, but surprisingly, little power is gained from adding time points to the end of the study. More restrictive choices for modeling the exposure time or calendar time trends (e.g., splines or linear terms) have little effect on power for TATE estimands but increases power for PTE estimands. If the effect curve is constant after a washout period, a "delayed constant treatment" model that uses exposure time indicators during the washout period but assumes a constant effect thereafter can slightly increase power relative to an IT model that discards washout period data.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalSample SizeSoftwareTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCluster randomized trialPowerSample sizeStaircaseStepped wedgeTime-varying treatment effectsTreatment effect heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID41721421
PMCPMC13032229

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.