4.6 Article

The staircase cluster randomised trial design: A pragmatic alternative to the stepped wedge

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/09622802231202364

关键词

Clinical trial design; cluster randomised trial; incomplete design; intracluster correlation; sample size

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces the 'staircase' design, which is a new experimental design method based on the zigzag pattern of steps. It can alleviate the burden on participating clusters, promote trial involvement, and reduce attrition. Although there is a lack of consistent methodology, we provide variance expressions for sample size and power calculations for the staircase designs.
This article introduces the 'staircase' design, derived from the zigzag pattern of steps along the diagonal of a stepped wedge design schematic where clusters switch from control to intervention conditions. Unlike a complete stepped wedge design where all participating clusters must collect and provide data for the entire trial duration, clusters in a staircase design are only required to be involved and collect data for a limited number of pre- and post-switch periods. This could alleviate some of the burden on participating clusters, encouraging involvement in the trial and reducing the likelihood of attrition. Staircase designs are already being implemented, although in the absence of a dedicated methodology, approaches to sample size and power calculations have been inconsistent. We provide expressions for the variance of the treatment effect estimator when a linear mixed model for an outcome is assumed for the analysis of staircase designs in order to enable appropriate sample size and power calculations. These include explicit variance expressions for basic staircase designs with one pre- and one post-switch measurement period. We show how the variance of the treatment effect estimator is related to key design parameters and demonstrate power calculations for examples based on a real trial.

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