 Letter
 Open access
 Published:
Sample size calculations for stepped wedge trials using design effects are only approximate in some circumstances
Trials volumeÂ 17, ArticleÂ number:Â 234 (2016)
Abstract
Estimation of sample size and power for stepped wedge cluster randomised trials can be determined by one of a number of related methods. These include exact analytical approaches, design effects or simulation. A recent paper compared the design effect to the analytical method. There were some differences between the two approaches. We show here that these differences occur because the design effect approach is only technically correct when there is an equal number of clusters crossing over at each step.
Findings
The design effect for the stepped wedge cluster randomised trial is only appropriate when there is an equal number of clusters switching at each step.
Background
Baio and colleagues [1] compare the estimated number of clusters needed in a sample size calculation for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (SWCRT), between the analytical method proposed by Hussey and Hughes [2] and the design effect proposed by Woertman et al. [3]. Table 1 of the paper by Baio [1] shows that the results, whilst similar, do not exactly match between the two approaches. There may be several explanations for this. But one potentially important explanation is that the design effect proposed by Woertman is only valid when the same number of clusters crosses over at each step. When the number of clusters crossing over at each step is different, the arrangement of the crossovers can result in different levels of power.
Worked example
Suppose a trial is to be designed to detect a standardised mean difference of 0.25 at 80Â % power and 5Â % significance. Under individual randomisation a sample size in the region of 250 per arm is needed. This example is constructed to be similar to the example in Table 1 of [1] for the continuous outcome. Assume a crosssectional SWCRT design is to be used with 5 steps (equating to 6 measurement points) with a cluster size of 20 per measurement point and a total cluster size of 120(=6*20). For illustration we consider the case for which the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is 0 (row 1 of Table 1 in [1]).
The design effect based on the formula by Woertman is:
which is equal to 1.88 to 2 decimal places (dp). Multiplying this design effect by the number needed under individual randomisation gives 938 (approx. 1.88*250*2). Dividing this total sample size by the total cluster size 120 (=20*6) gives 7.82 (2 dp). Rounding up gives 8 clusters needed, randomised across 5 steps.
However, using 8 clusters in an SWCRT with 5 steps does not result in the same number of clusters crossing over at each step (as 8 is not a multiple of 5). So, either 1 or 2 clusters need to cross over at each step. There are, however, different ways of arranging this design. Two possible arrangements are given in Fig.Â 1â€”but there are several more. The two examples in Fig.Â 1 both give different values of power, even though they include 8 clusters.
Perhaps the more intuitive arrangement is to have 2 clusters randomised to each of steps 1, 2 and 3 and 1 cluster randomised to each of steps 4 and 5 (Fig.Â 1, arrangement one). This design, although it contains 8 clusters, results in only 77Â % power, where power is computed using the analytical method described in Hussey and Hughes [2]. Of note, this is less than 80Â %, which was the value used to determine the number of clusters (8).
An alternative arrangement, arrangement two in Fig.Â 1, has 2 clusters randomised to steps 1, 2 and 5 and 1 cluster randomised to steps 3 and 4. This arrangement provides 83Â % power.
Conclusion
In some ways the observation presented here is a technicality. But, it might have some interesting ramificationsâ€”and insights for maximising efficiency. At the very least, when using the design effect in practical applications, it is important to appreciate this difference and check that the magnitude of the differences in power is not too great.
Abbreviations
 SWCRT:

stepped wedge cluster randomised trial
References
Baio G, Copas A, Ambler G, Hargreaves J, Beard E, Omar RZ. Sample size calculation for a stepped wedge trial. Trials. 2015;16:354. doi:10.1186/s1306301508409.
Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):182â€“91.
Woertman W, de Hoop E, Moerbeek M, Zuidema SU, Gerritsen DL, Teerenstra S. Stepped wedge designs could reduce the required sample size in cluster randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):752â€“8. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.009.
Acknowledgements
No funding was received to write this letter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
I declare I have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.
About this article
Cite this article
Hemming, K. Sample size calculations for stepped wedge trials using design effects are only approximate in some circumstances. Trials 17, 234 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1306301613594
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1306301613594