Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT:

crowd-sourcing systematic review

Karla Hemming, Kelly Carroll, Jennifer Thompson, Andrew Forbes, Monica Taljaard, Pamela Jacobsen, SW-CRT review group

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives
The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) is a recently published reporting guideline for SW-CRTs. We assess the quality of reporting of a recent sample of SW-CRTs.

Study Design and Setting
Quality of reporting was asssessed according to the 26 items in the new guideline using a novel crowd sourcing methodology conducted independently and in duplicate, with random assignment, by 50 reviewers. We assessed reliability of the quality assessments, proposing this as a novel way to assess robustness of items in reporting guidelines.

Results
Several items were well reported. Some items were very poorly reported, including several items that have unique requirements for the SW-CRT, such as the rationale for use of the design, description of the design, identification and recruitment of participants within clusters, and concealment of cluster allocation (not reported in more than 50% of the reports). Agreement across items was moderate (median percentage agreement was 76% [IQR 64 to 86]). Agreement was low for several items including the description of the trial design and why trial ended or stopped for example.

Conclusions
When reporting SW-CRTs, authors should pay particular attention to ensure clear reporting on the exact format of the design with justification, as well as how clusters and individuals were identified for inclusion in the study, and whether this was done before or after randomization of the clusters, which are crucial for risk of bias assessments. Some items, including why the trial ended, might either not be relevant to SW-CRTs or might be unclearly described in the statement.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-88
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume107
Early online date28 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2019

Keywords

  • CONSORT
  • Quality of reporting
  • Reliability
  • Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT: crowd-sourcing systematic review. / Hemming, Karla; Carroll, Kelly; Thompson, Jennifer; Forbes, Andrew; Taljaard, Monica; Jacobsen, Pamela; SW-CRT review group.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 107, 01.03.2019, p. 77-88.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Hemming, Karla ; Carroll, Kelly ; Thompson, Jennifer ; Forbes, Andrew ; Taljaard, Monica ; Jacobsen, Pamela ; SW-CRT review group. / Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT: crowd-sourcing systematic review. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019 ; Vol. 107. pp. 77-88.
@article{cee290542d3c41689f4333257f4abe35,
title = "Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT:: crowd-sourcing systematic review",
abstract = "ObjectivesThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) is a recently published reporting guideline for SW-CRTs. We assess the quality of reporting of a recent sample of SW-CRTs.Study Design and SettingQuality of reporting was asssessed according to the 26 items in the new guideline using a novel crowd sourcing methodology conducted independently and in duplicate, with random assignment, by 50 reviewers. We assessed reliability of the quality assessments, proposing this as a novel way to assess robustness of items in reporting guidelines.ResultsSeveral items were well reported. Some items were very poorly reported, including several items that have unique requirements for the SW-CRT, such as the rationale for use of the design, description of the design, identification and recruitment of participants within clusters, and concealment of cluster allocation (not reported in more than 50{\%} of the reports). Agreement across items was moderate (median percentage agreement was 76{\%} [IQR 64 to 86]). Agreement was low for several items including the description of the trial design and why trial ended or stopped for example.ConclusionsWhen reporting SW-CRTs, authors should pay particular attention to ensure clear reporting on the exact format of the design with justification, as well as how clusters and individuals were identified for inclusion in the study, and whether this was done before or after randomization of the clusters, which are crucial for risk of bias assessments. Some items, including why the trial ended, might either not be relevant to SW-CRTs or might be unclearly described in the statement.",
keywords = "CONSORT, Quality of reporting, Reliability, Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial",
author = "Karla Hemming and Kelly Carroll and Jennifer Thompson and Andrew Forbes and Monica Taljaard and Pamela Jacobsen and {SW-CRT review group}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017",
language = "English",
volume = "107",
pages = "77--88",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT:

T2 - crowd-sourcing systematic review

AU - Hemming, Karla

AU - Carroll, Kelly

AU - Thompson, Jennifer

AU - Forbes, Andrew

AU - Taljaard, Monica

AU - Jacobsen, Pamela

AU - SW-CRT review group, null

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - ObjectivesThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) is a recently published reporting guideline for SW-CRTs. We assess the quality of reporting of a recent sample of SW-CRTs.Study Design and SettingQuality of reporting was asssessed according to the 26 items in the new guideline using a novel crowd sourcing methodology conducted independently and in duplicate, with random assignment, by 50 reviewers. We assessed reliability of the quality assessments, proposing this as a novel way to assess robustness of items in reporting guidelines.ResultsSeveral items were well reported. Some items were very poorly reported, including several items that have unique requirements for the SW-CRT, such as the rationale for use of the design, description of the design, identification and recruitment of participants within clusters, and concealment of cluster allocation (not reported in more than 50% of the reports). Agreement across items was moderate (median percentage agreement was 76% [IQR 64 to 86]). Agreement was low for several items including the description of the trial design and why trial ended or stopped for example.ConclusionsWhen reporting SW-CRTs, authors should pay particular attention to ensure clear reporting on the exact format of the design with justification, as well as how clusters and individuals were identified for inclusion in the study, and whether this was done before or after randomization of the clusters, which are crucial for risk of bias assessments. Some items, including why the trial ended, might either not be relevant to SW-CRTs or might be unclearly described in the statement.

AB - ObjectivesThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) is a recently published reporting guideline for SW-CRTs. We assess the quality of reporting of a recent sample of SW-CRTs.Study Design and SettingQuality of reporting was asssessed according to the 26 items in the new guideline using a novel crowd sourcing methodology conducted independently and in duplicate, with random assignment, by 50 reviewers. We assessed reliability of the quality assessments, proposing this as a novel way to assess robustness of items in reporting guidelines.ResultsSeveral items were well reported. Some items were very poorly reported, including several items that have unique requirements for the SW-CRT, such as the rationale for use of the design, description of the design, identification and recruitment of participants within clusters, and concealment of cluster allocation (not reported in more than 50% of the reports). Agreement across items was moderate (median percentage agreement was 76% [IQR 64 to 86]). Agreement was low for several items including the description of the trial design and why trial ended or stopped for example.ConclusionsWhen reporting SW-CRTs, authors should pay particular attention to ensure clear reporting on the exact format of the design with justification, as well as how clusters and individuals were identified for inclusion in the study, and whether this was done before or after randomization of the clusters, which are crucial for risk of bias assessments. Some items, including why the trial ended, might either not be relevant to SW-CRTs or might be unclearly described in the statement.

KW - CONSORT

KW - Quality of reporting

KW - Reliability

KW - Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059315783&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017

M3 - Review article

VL - 107

SP - 77

EP - 88

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -