ArticleContemporary clinical trials2011
Cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions: are appropriate statistical methods being used?
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Single-round performance of colorectal cancer screening programs: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Methods for dealing with unequal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials: A scoping review.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.Preventive medicine · 2018Review
- Maximin optimal designs for cluster randomized trials.Biometrics · 2017Article
- Recommendations for choosing an analysis method that controls Type I error for unbalanced cluster sample designs with Gaussian outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2015Article
- Article
- Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The design and analysis of cluster randomized trials can require more sophistication than individually randomized trials. However, the need for statistical methods that account for the clustered design has not always been appreciated, and past reviews have found widespread deficiencies in methodology and reporting. We reviewed cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions published in 1995-2010 to determine whether the use of appropriate statistical methods had increased over time. Literature searches yielded 50 articles reporting outcome analyses of cluster randomized trials of breast, cervix and colorectal cancer screening interventions. Of studies published in 1995-1999, 2000-2002, 2003-2006 and 2007-2010, 55% (6/11), 82% (9/11), 92% (12/13) and 60% (9/15) used appropriate analytic methods, respectively. Results were suggestive of a peak in 2003-2006 (p =.06) followed by a decline in 2007-2010 (p =.08). While the sample of studies was small, these results indicate that many cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions have had deficiencies in the application of correct statistical procedures for the outcome analysis, and that increased adoption of appropriate methods in the early and mid-2000's may not have been sustained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.