Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Background/AimsStepped-wedge cluster randomized trials tend to require fewer clusters than standard parallel-arm designs due to the switches between control and intervention conditions, but there are no recommendations for the minimum number of clusters. Trials randomizing an extremely small number of clusters are not uncommon, but the justification for small numbers of clusters is often unclear and appropriate analysis is often lacking. In addition, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials are methodologically more complex due to their longitudinal correlation structure, and ignoring the distinct within- and between-period intracluster correlations can underestimate the sample size in small stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials. We conducted a review of published small stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials to understand how and why they are used, and to characterize approaches used in their design and analysis.MethodsElectronic searches were used to identify primary reports of full-scale stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials published during the period 2016–2022; the subset that randomized two to six clusters was identified. Two reviewers independently extracted information from each report and any available protocol. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.ResultsWe identified 61 stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials that randomized two to six clusters: median sample size (Q1–Q3) 1426 (420–7553) participants. Twelve (19.7%) gave some indication that the evaluation was considered a "preliminary" evaluation and 16 (26.2%) recognized the small number of clusters as a limitation. Sixteen (26.2%) provided an explanation for the limited number of clusters: the need to minimize contamination (e.g. by merging adjacent units), limited availability of clusters, and logistical considerations were common explanations. Majority (51, 83.6%) presented sample size or power calculations, but only one assumed distinct within- and between-period intracluster correlations. Few (10, 16.4%) utilized restricted randomization methods; more than half (34, 55.7%) identified baseline imbalances. The most common statistical method for analysis was the generalized linear mixed model (44, 72.1%). Only four trials (6.6%) reported statistical analyses considering small numbers of clusters: one used generalized estimating equations with small-sample correction, two used generalized linear mixed model with small-sample correction, and one used Bayesian analysis. Another eight (13.1%) used fixed-effects regression, the performance of which requires further evaluation under stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials with small numbers of clusters. None used permutation tests or cluster-period level analysis.ConclusionMethods appropriate for the design and analysis of small stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials have not been widely adopted in practice. Greater awareness is required that the use of standard sample size calculation methods can provide spuriously low numbers of required clusters. Methods such as generalized estimating equations or generalized linear mixed models with small-sample corrections, Bayesian approaches, and permutation tests may be more appropriate for the analysis of small stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials. Future research is needed to establish best practices for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters.

Comparing denominator degrees of freedom approximations for the generalized linear mixed model in analyzing binary outcome in small sample cluster-randomized trials

Estimating an adjusted risk difference in a cluster randomized trial with individual-level analyses

Comparison of tests for categorical data from a stratified cluster randomized trial

Sample size requirements for testing treatment effect heterogeneity in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes

Sample Size Calculation for Cluster Randomized Trials with Zero-inflated Count Outcomes

Leveraging baseline covariates to analyze small cluster-randomized trials with a rare binary outcome

Power Analysis for Cluster Randomized Trials with Binary Outcomes Modeled by Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models

Methods for dealing with unequal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials: A scoping review

Evaluation of the type I error rate when using parametric bootstrap analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with binary outcomes and a small number of clusters

Cluster Randomized Trials with a Pretest and Posttest: Equivalence of Three-, Two- and One-Level Analyses, and Sample Size Calculation

Power considerations for generalized estimating equations analyses of four-level cluster randomized trials

Sample size calculation for treatment effects in randomized trials with fixed cluster sizes and heterogeneous intraclass correlations and variances

Meta-analysis of community-based cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes

Maintaining the validity of inference from linear mixed models in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials under misspecified random-effects structures

Marginal modeling of cluster-period means and intraclass correlations in stepped wedge designs with binary outcomes

Testing two variances for superiority/non-inferiority and equivalence: Using the exhaustion algorithm for sample size allocation with cost

Gamma Approximation of Stratified Truncated Exact test (GASTE-test) & Application

Handling incomplete outcomes and covariates in cluster-randomized trials: doubly-robust estimation, efficiency considerations, and sensitivity analysis

Covariate-constrained randomization in cluster randomized 2 × 2 factorial trials: application to a diabetes prevention study

A review of current practice in the design and analysis of extremely small stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials

Optimal exact tests for multiple binary endpoints