Skip to main content
Download PDF

Volume 16 Supplement 2

3rd International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference

Assessing sensitivity to assumptions in mixed effects analyses of stepped-wedge trials

Trials volume 16, Article number: O46 (2015) Cite this article

Background

Stepped-wedge trials are used to evaluate the impact of interventions. Researchers often use mixed effects regression to estimate effects. This method includes within-cluster - non-randomised - comparisons that requires assumptions about the secular trends.

Methods

We simulated data from stepped-wedge trials with different characteristics. We analysed these data using a within-step only approach and mixed effects regression, and evaluated their performance. The within-step only approach preserves randomisation by combining estimates of effect from within steps using a weighted average; we used non-parametric bootstrapping to generate inferential statistics. We introduced violations of the mixed effects model assumptions and investigated the effects on the two methods.

Results

When the assumptions were met, the mixed effects method was more sensitive and specific than the within-step approach. Bias was introduced to the mixed effects results by interaction of the secular trend with the clusters, and with the intervention. The within-step approach remained unbiased even in extreme violations of these assumptions. Comparing the mixed effects estimate of effect with the within-step estimate helped identify violations of the assumptions.

Discussion

We confirmed that mixed effects methods are more powerful than a within-step method when assumptions are met. Moderate to severe violations of assumptions led to bias, supporting the need for clear reporting standards and sensitivity analysis for stepped-wedge trials. Estimating the within-step effect can be useful for identifying bias.

Conclusion

Within-step analyses that preserve the randomisation should be used as a diagnostic to assess the validity of common mixed effects methods for analysing stepped-wedge trials.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Calum Davey

  2. MRC London Hub for Trials Methodology Research, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK

    Jennifer A Thompson

Authors
  1. Calum Davey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer A Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A Thompson.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davey, C., Thompson, J.A. Assessing sensitivity to assumptions in mixed effects analyses of stepped-wedge trials. Trials 16, O46 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-O46

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public Health
  • Sensitivity Analysis
  • Weighted Average
  • Simulated Data
  • Mixed Effect

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215