4.6 Article

Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 137-146

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.015

关键词

Stepped wedge; Cluster randomized trial; Power; Sample size; Efficiency; Study design

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for West Midlands
  2. Medical Research Council (MRC) Midland Hub for Trials Methodology Research [G0800808]
  3. MRC [G0800808] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0800808] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To clarify and illustrate sample size calculations for the cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) and to present a simple approach for comparing the efficiencies of competing designs within a unified framework. Study Design and Setting: We summarize design effects for the SW-CRT, the parallel cluster randomized trial (CRT), and the parallel cluster randomized trial with before and after observations (CRT-BA), assuming cross-sectional samples are selected over time. We present new formulas that enable trialists to determine the required cluster size for a given number of clusters. We illustrate by example how to implement the presented design effects and give practical guidance on the design of stepped wedge studies. Results: For a fixed total cluster size, the choice of study design that provides the greatest power depends on the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and the cluster size. When the ICC is small, the CRT tends to be more efficient; when the ICC is large, the SW-CRT tends to be more efficient and can serve as an alternative design when the CRT is an infeasible design. Conclusion: Our unified approach allows trialists to easily compare the efficiencies of three competing designs to inform the decision about the most efficient design in a given scenario. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据