Literature DB >> 32386407

Reflection on modern methods: when is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial a good study design choice?

Karla Hemming1, Monica Taljaard2,3.   

Abstract

The stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) involves the sequential transition of clusters (such as hospitals, public health units or communities) from control to intervention conditions in a randomized order. The use of the SW-CRT is growing rapidly. Yet the SW-CRT is at greater risks of bias compared with the conventional parallel cluster randomized trial (parallel-CRT). For this reason, the CONSORT extension for SW-CRTs requires that investigators provide a clear justification for the choice of study design. In this paper, we argue that all other things being equal, the SW-CRT is at greater risk of bias due to misspecification of the secular trends at the analysis stage. This is particularly problematic for studies randomizing a small number of heterogeneous clusters. We outline the potential conditions under which an SW-CRT might be an appropriate choice. Potentially appropriate and often overlapping justifications for conducting an SW-CRT include: (i) the SW-CRT provides a means to conduct a randomized evaluation which otherwise would not be possible; (ii) the SW-CRT facilitates cluster recruitment as it enhances the acceptability of a randomized evaluation either to cluster gatekeepers or other stakeholders; (iii) the SW-CRT is the only feasible design due to pragmatic and logistical constraints (for example the roll-out of a scare resource); and (iv) the SW-CRT has increased statistical power over other study designs (which will include situations with a limited number of clusters). As the number of arguments in favour of an SW-CRT increases, the likelihood that the benefits of using the SW-CRT, as opposed to a parallel-CRT, outweigh its risks also increases. We argue that the mere popularity and novelty of the SW-CRT should not be a factor in its adoption. In situations when a conventional parallel-CRT is feasible, it is likely to be the preferred design.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cluster randomized trial; design justification; stepped-wedge

Year:  2020        PMID: 32386407     DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyaa077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  20 in total

1.  Health Economic Evaluation Alongside Stepped Wedge Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review.

Authors:  Thomas Lung; Lei Si; Richard Hooper; Gian Luca Di Tanna
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-10-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trials: A Methodological Overview.

Authors:  Fan Li; Rui Wang
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.210

3.  Considerations Before Selecting a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design for a Practice Improvement Study.

Authors:  Ann M Nguyen; Charles M Cleland; L Miriam Dickinson; Michael P Barry; Samuel Cykert; F Daniel Duffy; Anton J Kuzel; Stephan R Lindner; Michael L Parchman; Donna R Shelley; Theresa L Walunas
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2022 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.707

4.  Divergent confidence intervals among pre-specified analyses in the HiSTORIC stepped wedge trial: An exploratory post-hoc investigation.

Authors:  Richard A Parker; Catriona Keerie; Christopher J Weir; Atul Anand; Nicholas L Mills
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Carole A Federico; Patrick J Heagerty; John Lantos; Pearl O'Rourke; Vasiliki Rahimzadeh; Jeremy Sugarman; Kevin Weinfurt; David Wendler; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Magnus
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 2.261

6.  Primary Care Behavioral Health Integration and Care Utilization: Implications for Patient Outcome and Healthcare Resource Use.

Authors:  Daniel D Maeng; Ellen Poleshuck; Tziporah Rosenberg; Amie Kulak; Thomas Mahoney; George Nasra; Hochang B Lee; Yue Li
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 6.473

7.  DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings.

Authors:  Wynne E Norton; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; David A Chambers; Philip J Stella; Otis W Brawley; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2021-02-24

8.  Community participatory learning and action cycle groups to reduce type 2 diabetes in Bangladesh (D:Clare trial): study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Carina King; Malini Pires; Naveed Ahmed; Kohenour Akter; Abdul Kuddus; Andrew Copas; Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli; Joanna Morrison; Tasmin Nahar; Sanjit Kumer Shaha; A K Azad Khan; Kishwar Azad; Edward Fottrell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.728

9.  Effect of a Sedation and Ventilator Liberation Protocol vs Usual Care on Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Bronagh Blackwood; Lyvonne N Tume; Kevin P Morris; Mike Clarke; Clíona McDowell; Karla Hemming; Mark J Peters; Lisa McIlmurray; Joanne Jordan; Ashley Agus; Margaret Murray; Roger Parslow; Timothy S Walsh; Duncan Macrae; Christina Easter; Richard G Feltbower; Daniel F McAuley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Pilot and feasibility studies for pragmatic trials have unique considerations and areas of uncertainty.

Authors:  Claire L Chan; Monica Taljaard; Gillian A Lancaster; Jamie C Brehaut; Sandra M Eldridge
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 6.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.