ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Inference for the treatment effect in staircase designs with continuous outcomes: a simulation study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStaircase designs are incomplete stepped wedge designs that, unlike standard stepped wedge designs, require clusters to contribute data for only a limited number of trial periods. Previous work has provided formulae based on asymptotic results for the calculation of the power of staircase designs to detect treatment effects of interest.
methodsWe conduct a simulation study to assess the finite sample performance of these formulae, and the impact of misspecifying the correlation structure when analysing data from staircase designs on inference for the treatment effect, under a range of realistic trial settings. This study focuses on basic staircase designs with one control period followed by one intervention period in each sequence. We simulate staircase trial datasets with continuous outcomes and a repeated cross-sectional measurement scheme under exchangeable and block-exchangeable intracluster correlation structures, and then fit linear mixed models with linear and categorical time period effects. For settings with a small number of clusters, Kenward-Roger and Satterthwaite small-sample corrections are applied. Comparisons are made between nominal and observed Type I error rates, and theoretically-derived study power and empirical power. The impact on inference for the treatment effect when misspecifying the intracluster correlation structure is assessed through considering performance metrics including bias and 95% confidence interval coverage.
resultsData analysis assuming an exchangeable correlation structure and application of the Satterthwaite correction controls Type I error well when the correlation structure is correctly specified, and there are a sufficient number of clusters. For the true block-exchangeable model, when fitting the correct model with the Satterthwaite correction, the observed Type I error (empirical power) can be higher (lower) than the nominal (i.e., theoretical) value when there is only 1 cluster per sequence, but otherwise, it aligns well with the nominal (theoretical) value. Misspecification of the correlation structure (fitting an exchangeable model when the true structure is block-exchangeable) can lead to inflated Type I error and poor confidence interval coverage.
conclusionsStaircase designs with one cluster per sequence should be used with caution. Additionally, using a correlation structure that allows for decay is preferable for making valid inferences for the estimation of the treatment effect.
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.