Cargando…

How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?

In cluster randomised trials, randomisation increases internal study validity. If enough clusters are randomised, an unadjusted analysis should be unbiased. If a smaller number of clusters are included, stratified or matched randomisation can increase comparability between trial arms. In addition, a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hargreaves, James R, Prost, Audrey, Fielding, Katherine L., Copas, Andrew J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275907
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0872-1
_version_ 1782385904180002816
author Hargreaves, James R
Prost, Audrey
Fielding, Katherine L.
Copas, Andrew J.
author_facet Hargreaves, James R
Prost, Audrey
Fielding, Katherine L.
Copas, Andrew J.
author_sort Hargreaves, James R
collection PubMed
description In cluster randomised trials, randomisation increases internal study validity. If enough clusters are randomised, an unadjusted analysis should be unbiased. If a smaller number of clusters are included, stratified or matched randomisation can increase comparability between trial arms. In addition, an adjusted analysis may be required; nevertheless, randomisation removes the possibility for systematically biased allocation and increases transparency. In stepped wedge trials, clusters are randomised to receive an intervention at different start times (‘steps’), and all clusters eventually receive it. In a recent study protocol for a ‘modified stepped wedge trial’, the investigators considered randomisation of the clusters (hospital wards), but decided against it for ethical and logistical reasons, and under the assumption that it would not add much to the rigour of the evaluation. We show that the benefits of randomisation for cluster randomised trials also apply to stepped wedge trials. The biggest additional issue for stepped wedge trials in relation to parallel cluster randomised trials is the need to control for secular trends in the outcome. Analysis of stepped wedge trials can in theory be based on ‘horizontal’ or ‘vertical’ comparisons. Horizontal comparisons are based on measurements taken before and after the intervention is introduced in each cluster, and are unbiased if there are no secular trends. Vertical comparisons are based on outcome measurements from clusters that have switched to the intervention condition and those from clusters that have yet to switch, and are unbiased under randomisation since at any time point, which clusters are in intervention and control conditions will have been determined at random. Secular outcome trends are a possibility in many settings. Many stepped wedge trials are analysed with a mixed model, including a random effect for cluster and fixed effects for time period to account for secular trends, thereby combining both vertical and horizontal comparisons of intervention and control clusters. The importance of randomisation in a stepped wedge trial is that the effects of time can be estimated from the data, and bias from secular trends that would otherwise arise can be controlled for, provided the trends are correctly specified in the model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4537545
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45375452015-08-16 How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial? Hargreaves, James R Prost, Audrey Fielding, Katherine L. Copas, Andrew J. Trials Commentary In cluster randomised trials, randomisation increases internal study validity. If enough clusters are randomised, an unadjusted analysis should be unbiased. If a smaller number of clusters are included, stratified or matched randomisation can increase comparability between trial arms. In addition, an adjusted analysis may be required; nevertheless, randomisation removes the possibility for systematically biased allocation and increases transparency. In stepped wedge trials, clusters are randomised to receive an intervention at different start times (‘steps’), and all clusters eventually receive it. In a recent study protocol for a ‘modified stepped wedge trial’, the investigators considered randomisation of the clusters (hospital wards), but decided against it for ethical and logistical reasons, and under the assumption that it would not add much to the rigour of the evaluation. We show that the benefits of randomisation for cluster randomised trials also apply to stepped wedge trials. The biggest additional issue for stepped wedge trials in relation to parallel cluster randomised trials is the need to control for secular trends in the outcome. Analysis of stepped wedge trials can in theory be based on ‘horizontal’ or ‘vertical’ comparisons. Horizontal comparisons are based on measurements taken before and after the intervention is introduced in each cluster, and are unbiased if there are no secular trends. Vertical comparisons are based on outcome measurements from clusters that have switched to the intervention condition and those from clusters that have yet to switch, and are unbiased under randomisation since at any time point, which clusters are in intervention and control conditions will have been determined at random. Secular outcome trends are a possibility in many settings. Many stepped wedge trials are analysed with a mixed model, including a random effect for cluster and fixed effects for time period to account for secular trends, thereby combining both vertical and horizontal comparisons of intervention and control clusters. The importance of randomisation in a stepped wedge trial is that the effects of time can be estimated from the data, and bias from secular trends that would otherwise arise can be controlled for, provided the trends are correctly specified in the model. BioMed Central 2015-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4537545/ /pubmed/26275907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0872-1 Text en © Hargreaves et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Commentary
Hargreaves, James R
Prost, Audrey
Fielding, Katherine L.
Copas, Andrew J.
How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?
title How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?
title_full How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?
title_fullStr How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?
title_full_unstemmed How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?
title_short How important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?
title_sort how important is randomisation in a stepped wedge trial?
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275907
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0872-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hargreavesjamesr howimportantisrandomisationinasteppedwedgetrial
AT prostaudrey howimportantisrandomisationinasteppedwedgetrial
AT fieldingkatherinel howimportantisrandomisationinasteppedwedgetrial
AT copasandrewj howimportantisrandomisationinasteppedwedgetrial