Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation

ND Mdege, MS Man, Celia Taylor, DJ Torgerson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    265 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE To describe the application of the stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) design. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic review. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and Current Controlled Trials Register for articles published up to January 2010. Stepped wedge CRCTs from all fields of research were included. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted data from the studies. RESULTS Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Motivations for using the design included ethical, logistical, financial, social, and political acceptability and methodological reasons. Most studies were evaluating an intervention during routine implementation. For most of the included studies, there was also a belief or empirical evidence suggesting that the intervention would do more good than harm. There was variation in data analysis methods and insufficient quality of reporting. CONCLUSIONS The stepped wedge CRCT design has been mainly used for evaluating interventions during routine implementation, particularly for interventions that have been shown to be effective in more controlled research settings, or where there is lack of evidence of effectiveness but there is a strong belief that they will do more good than harm. There is need for consistent data analysis and reporting.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)936-948
    Number of pages13
    JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
    Volume64
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2011

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this