SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2013
A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of sample size estimation accuracy on power in malaria cluster randomised trials measuring epidemiological outcomes.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Characteristics and practices of school-based cluster randomised controlled trials for improving health outcomes in pupils in the United Kingdom: a methodological systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Bayesian statistics in the design and analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials and their reporting quality: a methodological systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of reporting of pilot and feasibility cluster randomised trials: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality and Reporting of Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Occupational Therapy Interventions: A Systematic Review.OTJR : occupation, participation and health · 2016Pooled it
- The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2015Pooled it
- Methodological quality and reporting of generalized linear mixed models in clinical medicine (2000-2012): a systematic review.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- A focus group study to understand biases and confounders in a cluster randomized controlled trial on low back pain in primary care in Norway.BMC family practice · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Researchers' views of risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: a qualitative interview study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Methodological challenges in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: Opportunities for improvement.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Cluster randomized trials of individual-level interventions were at high risk of bias.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Review
- Consequences of ignoring clustering in linear regression.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Contamination within trials of community-based public health interventions: lessons from the HENRY feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Article
- Review
- A Scoping Review on the Attributes of Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials in Long-Term Care Facilities.Current gerontology and geriatrics research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious reviews of cluster randomised trials have been critical of the quality of the trials reviewed, but none has explored determinants of the quality of these trials in a specific field over an extended period of time. Recent work suggests that correct conduct and reporting of these trials may require more than published guidelines. In this review, our aim was to assess the quality of cluster randomised trials conducted in residential facilities for older people, and to determine whether (1) statistician involvement in the trial and (2) strength of journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement influence quality.
methodsWe systematically identified trials randomising residential facilities for older people, or parts thereof, without language restrictions, up to the end of 2010, using National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed and hand-searching. We based quality assessment criteria largely on the extended CONSORT statement for cluster randomised trials. We assessed statistician involvement based on statistician co-authorship, and strength of journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement from journal websites.
results73 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 (27%) reported accounting for clustering in sample size calculations and 54 (74%) in the analyses. In 29 trials (40%), methods used to identify/recruit participants were judged by us to have potentially caused bias or reporting was unclear to reach a conclusion. Some elements of quality improved over time but this appeared not to be related to the publication of the extended CONSORT statement for these trials. Trials with statistician/epidemiologist co-authors were more likely to account for clustering in sample size calculations (unadjusted odds ratio 5.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 26.0) and analyses (unadjusted OR 3.2, 1.2 to 8.5). Journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement was not associated with trial quality.
conclusionsDespite international attempts to improve methods in cluster randomised trials, important quality limitations remain amongst these trials in residential facilities. Statistician involvement on trial teams may be more effective in promoting quality than further journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Funding bodies and journals should promote statistician involvement and co-authorship in addition to adherence to CONSORT guidelines.
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.