SynthesisTrials2011
Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimands for factorial trials.Statistics in medicine · 2022Trial
- Article
- Guidance for protocol content and reporting of factorial randomised trials: explanation and elaboration of the CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013 extensions.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Increasing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in primary care: A study protocol for a multi-level intervention using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) framework.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- When should factorial designs be used for late-phase randomised controlled trials?Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Review
- Review
- Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Enhancing the Cardiovascular Safety of Hemodialysis Care Using Multimodal Provider Education and Patient Activation Interventions: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Can immigrants counteract employer discrimination? A factorial field experiment reveals the immutability of ethnic hierarchies.PloS one · 2019Article
- Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Review
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
- A systematic approach to designing statistically powerful heteroscedastic 2 × 2 factorial studies while minimizing financial costs.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- What is a factorial trial?Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2013Article
- A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2013Article
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
backgroundStandards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation search of two review papers published in 2003. Data were extracted by two reviewers on 22 items relating to study design, analysis and presentation.
resultsWe identified 5941 unique titles, from which 116 full papers were obtained and 76 were included in the review. The included trials reflected a broad range of target conditions and types of intervention. The median sample size was 400 (interquartile range 191-1001). Most (88%) trials employed a 2 × 2 factorial design. Few trials (21%) explicitly stated the rationale for using a factorial design. Reporting of aspects of design, analysis or presentation specific to factorial trials was variable, but there was no evidence that reporting of these aspects was different for trials published before or after 2003. However, for CONSORT items that apply generally to the reporting of all trials, there was some evidence that later studies were more likely to report employing an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach (78% vs 52%), present appropriate between-group estimates of effect (88% vs 63%), and present standard errors or 95% confidence intervals for such estimates (78% vs 56%). Interactions between interventions and some measure of the precision associated with such effects were reported in only 14 (18%) trials.
conclusionsReports of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings vary in the amount of information they provide regarding important methodological aspects of design and analysis. This variability supports the extension of CONSORT guidelines to include the specific reporting of factorial trials.
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.