ArticleTrials2024
The fixed-effects model for robust analysis of stepped-wedge cluster trials with a small number of clusters and continuous outcomes: a simulation study.
Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Expenditures Associated With Implementing an External Facilitation Program to Increase the Prescribing of Medications Used for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Among Veterans.Substance use & addiction journal · 2025Trial
- What is estimated in cluster randomized crossover trials with informative sizes? A survey of estimands and common estimators.Statistical methods in medical research · 2026Article
- Comparing meta-analysis and linear mixed model-based approaches for the analysis of continuous outcomes from batched stepped wedge trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic stewardship in emergency departments using the UNTIE framework: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised study protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Mediation analysis investigating the mechanisms of two school-based smoking prevention interventions in adolescents from Northern Ireland and Bogotá.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Improving perinatal mood and anxiety disorders through integrated infant mental health care in obstetrics: evidence from a program evaluation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- How Should Parallel Cluster Randomized Trials With a Baseline Period be Analyzed?-A Survey of Estimands and Common Estimators.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- Inference for the treatment effect in staircase designs with continuous outcomes: a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStepped-wedge cluster trials (SW-CTs) describe a cluster trial design where treatment rollout is staggered over the course of the trial. Clusters are commonly randomized to receive treatment beginning at different time points in this study design (commonly referred to as a Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial; SW-CRT), but they can also be non-randomized. Trials with this design regularly have a low number of clusters and can be vulnerable to covariate imbalance. To address such covariate imbalance, previous work has examined covariate-constrained randomization and analysis adjustment for imbalanced covariates in mixed-effects models. These methods require the imbalanced covariate to always be known and measured. In contrast, the fixed-effects model automatically adjusts for all imbalanced time-invariant covariates, both measured and unmeasured, and has been implicated to have proper type I error control in SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and binary outcomes.
methodsWe present a simulation study comparing the performance of the fixed-effects model against the mixed-effects model in randomized and non-randomized SW-CTs with small numbers of clusters and continuous outcomes. Additionally, we compare these models in scenarios with cluster-level covariate imbalances or confounding.
resultsWe found that the mixed-effects model can have low coverage probabilities and inflated type I error rates in SW-CTs with continuous outcomes, especially with a small number of clusters or when the ICC is low. Furthermore, mixed-effects models with a Satterthwaite or Kenward-Roger small sample correction can still result in inflated or overly conservative type I error rates, respectively. In contrast, the fixed-effects model consistently produced the target level of coverage probability and type I error rates without dramatically compromising power. Furthermore, the fixed-effects model was able to automatically account for all time-invariant cluster-level covariate imbalances and confounding to robustly yield unbiased estimates.
conclusionsWe recommend the fixed-effects model for robust analysis of SW-CTs with a small number of clusters and continuous outcomes, due to its proper type I error control and ability to automatically adjust for all potential imbalanced time-invariant cluster-level covariates and confounders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.