4.4 Article

Stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial designs: a review of reporting quality and design features

Journal

TRIALS
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-1783-0

Keywords

Cluster randomized controlled trial; Reporting quality; Review; Stepped wedge

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust [099770/Z/12/Z]
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_1302/2]
  3. National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre [MC_UP_1302/4]
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_00002/6, MC_UP_1302/2, MC_UU_00002/3, MC_UP_1302/4] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MC_UP_1302/4, MC_UU_00002/6, MC_UU_00002/3, MC_UP_1302/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Wellcome Trust [099770/Z/12/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The stepped wedge (SW) cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) design is being used with increasing frequency. However, there is limited published research on the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. We address this issue by conducting a literature review. Methods: Medline, Ovid, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, the ISRCTN registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify investigations employing the SW-CRCT design up to February 2015. For each included completed study, information was extracted on a selection of criteria, based on the CONSORT extension to CRCTs, to assess the quality of reporting. Results: A total of 123 studies were included in our review, of which 39 were completed trial reports. The standard of reporting of SW-CRCTs varied in quality. The percentage of trials reporting each criterion varied to as low as 15.4%, with a median of 66.7%. Conclusions: There is much room for improvement in the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. This is consistent with recent findings for CRCTs. A CONSORT extension for SW-CRCTs is warranted to standardize the reporting of SW-CRCTs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available