Adherence to key recommendations for design and analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: A review of trials published 2016–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT), in which clusters are randomized to a time at which they will transition to the intervention condition - rather than a trial arm - is a relatively new design. SW-CRTs have additional design and analytical considerations compared to conventional parallel arm trials. To inform future methodological development, including guidance for trialists and the selection of parameters for statistical simulation studies, we conducted a review of recently published SW-CRTs. Specific objectives were to describe (1) the types of designs used in practice, (2) adherence to key requirements for statistical analysis, and (3) practices around covariate adjustment. We also examined changes in adherence over time and by journal impact factor. METHODS: We used electronic searches to identify primary reports of SW-CRTs published 2016-2022. Two reviewers extracted information from each trial report and its protocol, if available, and resolved disagreements through discussion. RESULTS: We identified 160 eligible trials, randomizing a median (Q1-Q3) of 11 (8-18) clusters to 5 (4-7) sequences. The majority (122, 76%) were cross-sectional (almost all with continuous recruitment), 23 (14%) were closed cohorts and 15 (9%) open cohorts. Many trials had complex design features such as multiple or multivariate primary outcomes (50, 31%) or time-dependent repeated measures (27, 22%). The most common type of primary outcome was binary (51%); continuous outcomes were less common (26%). The most frequently used method of analysis was a generalized linear mixed model (112, 70%); generalized estimating equations were used less frequently (12, 8%). Among 142 trials with fewer than 40 clusters, only 9 (6%) reported using methods appropriate for a small number of clusters. Statistical analyses clearly adjusted for time effects in 119 (74%), for within-cluster correlations in 132 (83%), and for distinct between-period correlations in 13 (8%). Covariates were included in the primary analysis of the primary outcome in 82 (51%) and were most often individual-level covariates; however, clear and complete pre-specification of covariates was uncommon. Adherence to some key methodological requirements (adjusting for time effects, accounting for within-period correlation) was higher among trials published in higher versus lower impact factor journals. Substantial improvements over time were not observed although a slight improvement was observed in the proportion accounting for a distinct between-period correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Future methods development should prioritize methods for SW-CRTs with binary or time-to-event outcomes, small numbers of clusters, continuous recruitment designs, multivariate outcomes, or time-dependent repeated measures. Trialists, journal editors, and peer reviewers should be aware that SW-CRTs have additional methodological requirements over parallel arm designs including the need to account for period effects as well as complex intracluster correlations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.592 | 0.836 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".