Skip to content

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT : crowd-sourcing systematic review. / Hemming, K.; Carroll, K.; Thompson, J.; Forbes, A.; Taljaard, M.; Dutton, S.J.; Madurasinghe, V.; Morgan, K.; Stuart, B.; Fielding, K.; Cornelius, V.; Turner, E.L.; Hooper, R.; Giraudeau, B.; Seed, P.T.; Nickless, A.; Grayling, M.; Prague, M.; Kerry, S.; Bell, L.; Watson, E.; Gafoor, R.; Marlin, N.; Yorganci, E.; Smith, L.; Mbekwe, M.; Teerenstra, S.; Chan, C.; Moerbeek, M.; Jacobsen, P.; Bond, S.; Jones, B.; Preisser, J.; Kanaan, M.; Hewitt, C.; Easter, C.; Pellatt-Higgins, T.; Pankhurst, L.; Agbla, S.C.; Eldridge, S.; Lerner, R.G.; Leyrat, C.; Pilling, M.; Forman, J.R.; Bhattacharya, I.; Magill, N.; Candlish, J.; McDowell, C.; Martin, J.; Kristunas, C.; Allen, E.; Seward, N.; Nicholls, E.; Franklin, B.D.

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Hemming, K, Carroll, K, Thompson, J, Forbes, A, Taljaard, M, Dutton, SJ, Madurasinghe, V, Morgan, K, Stuart, B, Fielding, K, Cornelius, V, Turner, EL, Hooper, R, Giraudeau, B, Seed, PT, Nickless, A, Grayling, M, Prague, M, Kerry, S, Bell, L, Watson, E, Gafoor, R, Marlin, N, Yorganci, E, Smith, L, Mbekwe, M, Teerenstra, S, Chan, C, Moerbeek, M, Jacobsen, P, Bond, S, Jones, B, Preisser, J, Kanaan, M, Hewitt, C, Easter, C, Pellatt-Higgins, T, Pankhurst, L, Agbla, SC, Eldridge, S, Lerner, RG, Leyrat, C, Pilling, M, Forman, JR, Bhattacharya, I, Magill, N, Candlish, J, McDowell, C, Martin, J, Kristunas, C, Allen, E, Seward, N, Nicholls, E & Franklin, BD 2019, 'Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT: crowd-sourcing systematic review', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 107, pp. 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017

APA

Hemming, K., Carroll, K., Thompson, J., Forbes, A., Taljaard, M., Dutton, S. J., ... Franklin, B. D. (2019). Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT: crowd-sourcing systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 107, 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017

Vancouver

Hemming K, Carroll K, Thompson J, Forbes A, Taljaard M, Dutton SJ et al. Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT: crowd-sourcing systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019 Mar 1;107:77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017

Author

Hemming, K. ; Carroll, K. ; Thompson, J. ; Forbes, A. ; Taljaard, M. ; Dutton, S.J. ; Madurasinghe, V. ; Morgan, K. ; Stuart, B. ; Fielding, K. ; Cornelius, V. ; Turner, E.L. ; Hooper, R. ; Giraudeau, B. ; Seed, P.T. ; Nickless, A. ; Grayling, M. ; Prague, M. ; Kerry, S. ; Bell, L. ; Watson, E. ; Gafoor, R. ; Marlin, N. ; Yorganci, E. ; Smith, L. ; Mbekwe, M. ; Teerenstra, S. ; Chan, C. ; Moerbeek, M. ; Jacobsen, P. ; Bond, S. ; Jones, B. ; Preisser, J. ; Kanaan, M. ; Hewitt, C. ; Easter, C. ; Pellatt-Higgins, T. ; Pankhurst, L. ; Agbla, S.C. ; Eldridge, S. ; Lerner, R.G. ; Leyrat, C. ; Pilling, M. ; Forman, J.R. ; Bhattacharya, I. ; Magill, N. ; Candlish, J. ; McDowell, C. ; Martin, J. ; Kristunas, C. ; Allen, E. ; Seward, N. ; Nicholls, E. ; Franklin, B.D. / 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.

Bibtex

@article{a6fb9f4c7fa24a5dacf0dd5fb02763d1,
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.",
author = "K. Hemming and K. Carroll and J. Thompson and A. Forbes and M. Taljaard and S.J. Dutton and V. Madurasinghe and K. Morgan and B. Stuart and K. Fielding and V. Cornelius and E.L. Turner and R. Hooper and B. Giraudeau and P.T. Seed and A. Nickless and M. Grayling and M. Prague and S. Kerry and L. Bell and E. Watson and R. Gafoor and N. Marlin and E. Yorganci and L. Smith and M. Mbekwe and S. Teerenstra and C. Chan and M. Moerbeek and P. Jacobsen and S. Bond and B. Jones and J. Preisser and M. Kanaan and C. Hewitt and C. Easter and T. Pellatt-Higgins and L. Pankhurst and S.C. Agbla and S. Eldridge and R.G. Lerner and C. Leyrat and M. Pilling and J.R. Forman and I. Bhattacharya and N. Magill and J. Candlish and C. McDowell and J. Martin and C. Kristunas and E. Allen and N. Seward and E. Nicholls and B.D. Franklin",
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 Inc.",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

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

T2 - crowd-sourcing systematic review

AU - Hemming, K.

AU - Carroll, K.

AU - Thompson, J.

AU - Forbes, A.

AU - Taljaard, M.

AU - Dutton, S.J.

AU - Madurasinghe, V.

AU - Morgan, K.

AU - Stuart, B.

AU - Fielding, K.

AU - Cornelius, V.

AU - Turner, E.L.

AU - Hooper, R.

AU - Giraudeau, B.

AU - Seed, P.T.

AU - Nickless, A.

AU - Grayling, M.

AU - Prague, M.

AU - Kerry, S.

AU - Bell, L.

AU - Watson, E.

AU - Gafoor, R.

AU - Marlin, N.

AU - Yorganci, E.

AU - Smith, L.

AU - Mbekwe, M.

AU - Teerenstra, S.

AU - Chan, C.

AU - Moerbeek, M.

AU - Jacobsen, P.

AU - Bond, S.

AU - Jones, B.

AU - Preisser, J.

AU - Kanaan, M.

AU - Hewitt, C.

AU - Easter, C.

AU - Pellatt-Higgins, T.

AU - Pankhurst, L.

AU - Agbla, S.C.

AU - Eldridge, S.

AU - Lerner, R.G.

AU - Leyrat, C.

AU - Pilling, M.

AU - Forman, J.R.

AU - Bhattacharya, I.

AU - Magill, N.

AU - Candlish, J.

AU - McDowell, C.

AU - Martin, J.

AU - Kristunas, C.

AU - Allen, E.

AU - Seward, N.

AU - Nicholls, E.

AU - Franklin, B.D.

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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85059315783&partnerID=MN8TOARS

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.017

M3 - Article

VL - 107

SP - 77

EP - 88

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -