Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Analysis of Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trials when treatment effects vary by exposure time or calendar time

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.14706 v2 pith:5JPYEEO2 submitted 2024-09-23 stat.ME

classification stat.ME
keywords treatmenteffectcalendarexposuretimetruetime-averagedunderlying
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) are traditionally analyzed with models that assume an immediate and sustained treatment effect. Previous work has shown that making such an assumption in the analysis of SW-CRTs when the true underlying treatment effect varies by exposure time can produce severely misleading estimates. Alternatively, the true underlying treatment effect might vary by calendar time. Comparatively less work has examined treatment effect structure misspecification in this setting. Here, we evaluate the behavior of the mixed effects model-based immediate treatment effect, exposure time-averaged treatment effect, and calendar time-averaged treatment effect estimators in different scenarios where they are misspecified for the true underlying treatment effect structure. We show that the immediate treatment effect estimator is relatively robust to bias when estimating a true underlying calendar time-averaged treatment effect estimand. However, when there is a true underlying calendar (exposure) time-varying treatment effect, misspecifying an analysis with an exposure (calendar) time-averaged treatment effect estimator can yield severely misleading estimates and even converge to a value of the opposite sign of the true calendar (exposure) time-averaged treatment effect estimand. In this article, we highlight the two different time scales on which treatment effects can vary in SW-CRTs and clarify potential vulnerabilities that may arise when considering different types of time-varying treatment effects in a SW design. Accordingly, we emphasize the need for researchers to carefully consider whether the treatment effect may vary as a function of exposure time and/or calendar time in the analysis of SW-CRTs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. What is estimated in cluster randomized crossover trials with informative sizes? -- A survey of estimands and common estimators

    stat.ME 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In 2-period cluster randomized crossover trials with informative sizes, independence estimating equations always target the intended average treatment effect estimands, while nested exchangeable mixed model estimators do not.

  2. Time-varying treatment effect models in stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials with multiple interventions

    stat.ME 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In multi-intervention stepped-wedge trials, the constant effect estimator is a non-uniform weighted average of exposure-time-specific effects, so it can be biased and even opposite in sign to all true effects.

Pith tools