Reporting quality of stepped wedge design randomized trials: a systematic review protocol

被引:5
作者
Thabane, Alex [1 ,2 ]
Dennis, Brittany B. [3 ,4 ]
Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga [3 ,9 ,10 ]
Paul, James [2 ,3 ]
Thabane, Lehana [2 ,3 ,5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Queens Univ, Life Sci Program, Kingston, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Anesthesia, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[4] St Georges Univ London, London, England
[5] Hamilton Hlth Sci, Populat Hlth Res Inst, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[6] McMaster Univ, Dept Pediat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[7] St Josephs Healthcare, Ctr Evaluat Med, 3rd Floor,Martha Wing,Room H-325, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6, Canada
[8] St Josephs Healthcare, Biostat Unit, Father Sean OSullivan Res Ctr, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6, Canada
[9] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[10] St Peters Hosp, Hamilton Hlth Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada
来源
CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY | 2016年 / 8卷
关键词
randomized controlled trial; stepped wedge design; stepped wedge; cluster randomized trial; quality of reporting; systematic review; CONSORT; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.2147/CLEP.S103098
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Stepped wedge design (SWD) is a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) design that sequentially rolls out intervention to all clusters at varying time points. Being a relatively new design method, reporting quality has yet to be explored, and this review will seek to fill this gap in knowledge. Objectives: The objectives of this review are: 1) to assess the quality of SWD trial reports based on the CONSORT guidelines or CONSORT extension to cluster RCTs; 2) to assess the completeness of reporting of SWD trial abstracts using the CONSORT extension for abstracts; 3) to assess the reporting of sample size details in SWD trial reports or protocols; 4) to assess the completeness of reporting of SWD trial protocols according to SPIRIT guidelines; 5) to assess the consistency between the trial registration information and final SWD trial reports; and 6) to assess the consistency of what is reported in the abstracts and main text of the SWD trial reports. We will also explore factors that are associated with the completeness of reporting. Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for all randomized controlled trials utilizing SWD. Details from eligible papers will be extracted in duplicate. Demographic statistics obtained from the data extraction will be analyzed to answer the primary objectives pertaining to the reporting quality of several aspects of a published paper, as well as to explore possible temporal trends and consistency between abstracts, trial registration information, and final published articles. Discussion: Findings from this review will establish the reporting quality of SWD trials and inform academics and clinicians on their completeness and consistency. Results of this review will influence future trials and improve the overall quality and reporting of SWD trials.
引用
收藏
页码:261 / 266
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], STATACORP STAT STAT
  • [2] [Anonymous], COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
  • [3] Stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: systematic review of studies published between 2010 and 2014
    Beard, Emma
    Lewis, James J.
    Copas, Andrew
    Davey, Calum
    Osrin, David
    Baio, Gianluca
    Thompson, Jennifer A.
    Fielding, Katherine L.
    Omar, Rumana Z.
    Ononge, Sam
    Hargreaves, James
    Prost, Audrey
    [J]. TRIALS, 2015, 16
  • [4] Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement
    Begg, C
    Cho, M
    Eastwood, S
    Horton, R
    Moher, D
    Olkin, I
    Pitkin, R
    Rennie, D
    Schulz, KF
    Simel, D
    Stroup, DF
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08): : 637 - 639
  • [5] Brown CA., 2006, BMC MED RES METHODOL, V6, P54, DOI DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-6-54
  • [6] Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
    Campbell, Marion K.
    Piaggio, Gilda
    Elbourne, Diana R.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 345
  • [7] SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials
    Chan, An-Wen
    Tetzlaff, Jennifer M.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Laupacis, Andreas
    Gotzsche, Peter C.
    Krleza-Jeric, Karmela
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    Mann, Howard
    Dickersin, Kay
    Berlin, Jesse A.
    Dore, Caroline J.
    Parulekar, Wendy R.
    Summerskill, William S. M.
    Groves, Trish
    Schulz, Kenneth F.
    Sox, Harold C.
    Rockhold, Frank W.
    Rennie, Drummond
    Moher, David
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2013, 158 (03) : 200 - +
  • [8] Analysis and reporting of stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: synthesis and critical appraisal of published studies, 2010 to 2014
    Davey, Calum
    Hargreaves, James
    Thompson, Jennifer A.
    Copas, Andrew J.
    Beard, Emma
    Lewis, James J.
    Fielding, Katherine L.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2015, 16
  • [9] TOWARD A DUTY TO REPORT CLINICAL-TRIALS ACCURATELY - THE CLINICAL ALERT AND BEYOND
    GLASS, KC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS, 1994, 22 (04) : 327 - 338
  • [10] The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Gotzsche, Peter C.
    Jueni, Peter
    Moher, David
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Savovic, Jelena
    Schulz, Kenneth F.
    Weeks, Laura
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 343