Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26715549›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Cluster randomized trials for pharmacy practice research.

Tyler Gums, Barry Carter, Eric Foster

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tyler GumsUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Barry CarterUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. barry-carter@uiowa.edu.
Eric FosterUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are now the gold standard in health services research, including pharmacy-based interventions. Studies of behaviour, epidemiology, lifestyle modifications, educational programs, and health care models are utilizing the strengths of cluster randomized analyses. Methodology The key property of CRTs is the unit of randomization (clusters), which may be different from the unit of analysis (individual). Subject sample size and, ideally, the number of clusters is determined by the relationship of between-cluster and within-cluster variability. The correlation among participants recruited from the same cluster is known as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Generally, having more clusters with smaller ICC values will lead to smaller sample sizes. When selecting clusters, stratification before randomization may be useful in decreasing imbalances between study arms. Participant recruitment methods can differ from other types of randomized trials, as blinding a behavioural intervention cannot always be done. When to use CRTs can yield results that are relevant for making "real world" decisions. CRTs are often used in non-therapeutic intervention studies (e.g. change in practice guidelines). The advantages of CRT design in pharmacy research have been avoiding contamination and the generalizability of the results. A large CRT that studied physician-pharmacist collaborative management of hypertension is used in this manuscript as a CRT example. The trial, entitled Collaboration Among Pharmacists and physicians To Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION), was implemented in primary care offices in the United States for hypertensive patients. Limitations CRT design limitations include the need for a large number of clusters, high costs, increased training, increased monitoring, and statistical complexity.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsHumansPharmacy ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical trialsClusterPharmacy practiceRandomization

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.