Abstract
The stepped wedge design is a type of unidirectional crossover design where cluster units switch from control to intervention condition at different pre-specified time points. While a convention in study planning is to assume the cluster-period sizes are identical, stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) involving repeated cross-sectional designs frequently have unequal cluster-period sizes, which can impact the efficiency of the treatment effect estimator. In this article, we provide a comprehensive investigation of the efficiency impact of unequal cluster sizes for generalized estimating equation analyses of SW-CRTs, with a focus on binary outcomes as in the Washington State Expedited Partner Therapy trial. Several major distinctions between our work and existing work include: (i) we consider multilevel correlation structures in marginal models with binary outcomes; (ii) we study the implications of both the between-cluster and within-cluster imbalances in sizes; and (iii) we provide a comparison between the independence working correlation versus the true working correlation and detail the consequences of ignoring correlation estimation in SW-CRTs with unequal cluster sizes. We conclude that the working independence assumption can lead to substantial efficiency loss and a large sample size regardless of cluster-period size variability in SW-CRTs, and recommend accounting for correlations in the analysis. To improve study planning, we additionally provide a computationally efficient search algorithm to estimate the sample size in SW-CRTs accounting for unequal cluster-period sizes, and conclude by illustrating the proposed approach in the context of the Washington State study.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NA
Funding Statement
Research in this article was partially funded by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI Award ME-2019C1-16196) as well as by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR000142 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The statements presented in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee, or the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study does not involve IRB because no analysis of primary data is involved. The study focused on computer simulated data.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The study focuses on statistical methodology and does not involve any analysis of primary data. R code to replicate the simulations can be found in the Data Availability Links.
