ArticlePloS one2016
Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for improving health literacy among older people: a systematic review.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Waist circumference as a parameter in school-based interventions to prevent overweight and obesity - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions for pregnant women: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Mass drug administration for malaria.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Larviciding to prevent malaria transmission.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Insecticide-treated nets for preventing malaria.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Warnings on the inclusion of cluster randomized trials in meta-analysis: results of a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Citations for Randomized Controlled Trials in Sepsis Literature: The Halo Effect Caused by Journal Impact Factor.PloS one · 2017Article
- When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Article
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
objectiveSystematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance.
methodsCriteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2nd December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria.
resultsThe 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.
conclusionsThe methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs.
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.