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

Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 8, Issue , 2016, Pages 261-266

  Thabane, Alex ^a,b   Dennis, Brittany B ^b,c   Gajic Veljanoski, Olga ^b,g   Paul, James ^b   Thabane, Lehana ^b,d,e,f  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d HAMILTON HEALTH SCIENCES   (Canada)

^e CENTRE FOR EVALUATION OF MEDICINES   (Canada)

^f MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^g St Peter's Hospital   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cluster randomized trial; Quality of reporting; Randomized controlled trial; Stepped wedge; Stepped wedge design; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CINAHL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA EXTRACTION; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EMBASE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCINFO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGISTRATION; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEB OF SCIENCE;

EID: 84991823712     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11791349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S103098     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996, 276(8):637–639.
2. Glass KC. Toward a duty to report clinical trials accurately: the clinical alert and beyond. J Law Med Ethics J Am Soc Law Med Ethics. 1994, 22(4):327–338.
3. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet. 2008, 371(9609):281–283.
4. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013, 158(3):200–207.
5. Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, et al. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013, 6:169–188.
6. Ladd BO, McCrady BS, Manuel JK, et al. Improving the quality of reporting alcohol outcome studies: effects of the CONSORT statement. Addict Behav. 2010, 35(7):660–666.
7. Brown CA, Lilford RJ. The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006, 6:54.
8. Beard E, Lewis JJ, CopasA, et al. Stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: systematic review of studies published between 2010 and 2014. Trials. 2015, 16(1):353.
9. Mdege ND, Man MS, Taylor Nee Brown CA, Torgerson DJ. Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64(9):936–948.
10. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012, 345:e5661.
11. Pratoomsoot C, Sruamsiri R, Dilokthornsakul P, Chaiyakunapruk N. Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of herbal interventions in ASEAN Plus Six Countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015, 10(1):e108681.
12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009, 339:b2535.
13. Davey C, Hargreaves J, Thompson JA, et al. Analysis and reporting of stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: synthesis and critical appraisal of published studies, 2010 to 2014. Trials. 2015, 16(1):358.
14. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, The Cochrane Collaboration Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
15. StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2009.
16. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011, 343:d5928.
17. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012, 344:e4178.
18. Peters JP, Hooft L, Grolman W, Stegeman I. Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in otorhinolaryngologic literature – adherence to the CONSORT statement. PLoS One. 2015, 10(3): e0122328.