Statistical Properties of Stepped Wedge Cluster-Randomized Trials in Infectious Disease Outbreaks

  1. Lee Kennedy-Shaffer
  2. Marc Lipsitch

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials are crucial for the evaluation of interventions such as vaccinations, but the design and analysis of these studies during infectious disease outbreaks is complicated by statistical, ethical, and logistical factors. Attempts to resolve these complexities have led to the proposal of a variety of trial designs, including individual randomization and several types of cluster randomization designs: parallel-arm, ring vaccination, and stepped wedge designs. Because of the strong time trends present in infectious disease incidence, however, methods generally used to analyze stepped wedge trials might not perform well in these settings. Using simulated outbreaks, we evaluated various designs and analysis methods, including recently proposed methods for analyzing stepped wedge trials, to determine the statistical properties of these methods. While new methods for analyzing stepped wedge trials can provide some improvement over previous methods, we find that they still lag behind parallel-arm cluster-randomized trials and individually randomized trials in achieving adequate power to detect intervention effects. We also find that these methods are highly sensitive to the weighting of effect estimates across time periods. Despite the value of new methods, stepped wedge trials still have statistical disadvantages compared with other trial designs in epidemic settings.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/aje/kwaa141
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.01.20087429: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.01.20087429v1 on medRxiv