Cited by 907Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review

Open access
Brown, Celia A, Lilford, Richard J·2006·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date. METHODS: Comprehensive literature review of studies or protocols using a stepped wedge design. Data were extracted from the studies in three categories for subsequent consideration: study information (epidemiology, intervention, number of participants), reasons for using a stepped wedge design and methods of data analysis. RESULTS: The 12 studies included in this review describe evaluations of a wide range of interventions, across different diseases in different settings. However the stepped wedge design appears to have found a niche for evaluating interventions in developing countries, specifically those concerned with HIV. There were few consistent motivations for employing a stepped wedge design or methods of data analysis across studies. The methodological descriptions of stepped wedge studies, including methods of randomisation, sample size calculations and methods of analysis, are not always complete. CONCLUSION: While the stepped wedge design offers a number of opportunities for use in future evaluations, a more consistent approach to reporting and data analysis is required.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-6-54

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Chaisson RE, Durovni B, Cavalcante S, Golub JE, King B, Saraceni V, Efron A, Bishal D: The THRio Study. 2005, Further information about this study was obtained through contact with the authors, [ http://www.tbhiv-create.org/Studies/THRio.htm ]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 904

Metadata

Authors
Brown, C. A., & Lilford, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Brown, Celia A
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2006-11-08
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
54-54
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101754128
Cited by
907
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 78 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 34
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
stepped wedge design, HIV interventions, developing countries, randomization methods, sample size determination, data analysis methods, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Developing Countries, Humans, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review