Study design

Jump to: navigation, search

A study design is an analytic approach to conduct an epidemiological investigation, such as a clinical trial.

Types of design

Some of the most popular designs are sorted below, with the ones at the top being the most powerful at reducing observer-expectancy effect but also most expensive, and in some cases introducing ethical concerns. The ones at the bottom are the most affordable, and are frequently used earlier in the research cycle, to develop strong hypotheses worth testing with the more expensive research approaches.

File:Studydesigns.GIF

Experimental

Nonexperimental

Descriptive

  • Community survey

Important considerations

When choosing a study design, many factors must be taken into account. Different types of studies are subject to different types of bias. For example, recall bias is likely to occur in cross-sectional or case-control studies where subjects are asked to recall exposure to risk factors. Subjects with the relevant condition (e.g. breast cancer) may be more likely to recall the relevant exposures that they had undergone (e.g. hormone replacement therapy) than subjects who don't have the condition.

The ecological fallacy may occur when analyses are done on ecological (group-based) data rather than individual data. The nature of this type of analysis tends to overestimate the degree of association between variables.

Other terms

See also

External links

de:Forschungsdesign

References

  1. Bhatt DL. Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials NEJM 2016
  2. Hemming K, Haines TP, Chilton PJ, Girling AJ, Lilford RJ (2015). "The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: rationale, design, analysis, and reporting". BMJ. 350: h391. doi:10.1136/bmj.h391. PMID 25662947.
  3. Highfield L, Rajan SS, Valerio MA, Walton G, Fernandez ME, Bartholomew LK (2015). "A non-randomized controlled stepped wedge trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level mammography intervention in improving appointment adherence in underserved women". Implement Sci. 10: 143. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0334-x. PMC 4604615. PMID 26464110.
  4. Davey C, Hargreaves J, Thompson JA, Copas AJ, Beard E, Lewis JJ; et al. (2015). "Analysis and reporting of stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: synthesis and critical appraisal of published studies, 2010 to 2014". Trials. 16: 358. doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0838-3. PMC 4538923. PMID 26278667.
  5. Beard E, Lewis JJ, Copas A, Davey C, Osrin D, Baio G; et al. (2015). "Stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: systematic review of studies published between 2010 and 2014". Trials. 16: 353. doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0839-2. PMC 4538902. PMID 26278881.
  6. Martin J, Taljaard M, Girling A, Hemming K (2016). "Systematic review finds major deficiencies in sample size methodology and reporting for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials". BMJ Open. 6 (2): e010166. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010166. PMC 4746455. PMID 26846897.

Linked-in.jpg