| Title |
Reporting quality of stepped wedge design randomized trials: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s103098 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alex Thabane, Brittany B Dennis, Olga Gajic-Veljanoski, James Paul, Lehana Thabane |
| Abstract |
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. 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. 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. 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 20% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 July 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#530
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,605
of 367,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 367,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.