Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27504689›Full record

SynthesisOTJR : occupation, participation and health2016

Quality and Reporting of Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Occupational Therapy Interventions: A Systematic Review.

Ema Tokolahi, Clare Hocking, Paula Kersten, Alain C Vandal

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in OTJR : occupation, participation and health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Ema TokolahiAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand etokolah@aut.ac.nz.
Clare HockingAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand.
Paula KerstenAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand.
Alain C VandalAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand Health Intelligence & Informatics, Ko Awatea, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growing use of cluster randomized control trials (RCTs) in health care research requires careful attention to study designs, with implications for the development of an evidence base for practice. The objective of this study is to investigate the characteristics, quality, and reporting of cluster RCTs evaluating occupational therapy interventions to inform future research design. An extensive search of cluster RCTs evaluating occupational therapy was conducted in several databases. Fourteen studies met our inclusion criteria; four were protocols. Eleven (79%) justified the use of a cluster RCT and accounted for clustering in the sample size and analysis. All full studies reported the number of clusters randomized, and five reported intercluster correlation coefficients (50%): Protocols had higher compliance. Risk of bias was most evident in unblinding of participants. Statistician involvement was associated with improved trial quality and reporting. Quality of cluster RCTs of occupational therapy interventions is comparable with those from other areas of health research and needs improvement.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansOccupational Therapycluster randomized controlled trialsmethodsoccupational therapyresearch designsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27504689
PMCPMC4766971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.