Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 31, 2026
A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
The need to balance merits and limitations from different disciplines when considering the stepped wedge cluster
Esther de Hoop1, Ingeborg van der Tweel2, Rieke van der Graaf3
1Department of Biostatistics and Research Support, University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, 3508, GA, The Netherlands. E.oomen.dehoop@gmail.com.
Background:
Various papers have addressed pros and cons of the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design (SWD). However, some issues have not or only limitedly been addressed. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of all merits and limitations of the SWD to assist researchers, reviewers and medical ethics committees when deciding on the appropriateness of the SWD for a particular study.
Methods:
We performed an initial search to identify articles with a methodological focus on the SWD, and categorized and discussed all reported advantages and disadvantages of the SWD. Additional aspects were identified during multidisciplinary meetings in which ethicists, biostatisticians, clinical epidemiologists and health economists participated. All aspects of the SWD were compared to the parallel group cluster randomized design. We categorized the merits and limitations of the SWD to distinct phases in the design and conduct of such studies, highlighting that their impact may vary depending on the context of the study or that benefits may be offset by drawbacks across study phases. Furthermore, a real-life illustration is provided.
Results:
New aspects are identified within all disciplines. Examples of newly identified aspects of an SWD are: the possibility to measure a treatment effect in each cluster to examine the (in)consistency in effects across clusters, the detrimental effect of lower than expected inclusion rates, deviation from the ordinary informed consent process and the question whether studies using the SWD are likely to have sufficient social value. Discussions are provided on e.g. clinical equipoise, social value, health economical decision making, number of study arms, and interim analyses.
Conclusions:
Deciding on the use of the SWD involves aspects and considerations from different disciplines not all of which have been discussed before. Pros and cons of this design should be balanced in comparison to other feasible design options as to choose the optimal design for a particular intervention study.
Related Concept Videos
01:15Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
01:13Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
01:20Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
01:20Cluster Sampling Method
To choose a cluster sample, divide the population into clusters (groups) and then randomly select some of the clusters. All the members from these clusters are in the cluster sample. For example, if you randomly sample four departments from your...
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
01:15Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...