| Title |
The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-6-54 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Celia A Brown, Richard J Lilford |
| Abstract |
Stepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 26% |
| Canada | 6 | 15% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Cuba | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 56% |
| Scientists | 12 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 853 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 22 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 11 | 1% |
| India | 4 | <1% |
| Australia | 4 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 2% |
| Unknown | 785 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 207 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 135 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 103 | 12% |
| Other | 68 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 53 | 6% |
| Other | 195 | 23% |
| Unknown | 92 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 311 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 106 | 12% |
| Psychology | 62 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 51 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 38 | 4% |
| Other | 143 | 17% |
| Unknown | 142 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
#857,527
of 24,974,461 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#75
of 2,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,338
of 85,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,974,461 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 85,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.