ReviewPreventive medicine2018
Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.
Review in Preventive medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Intraclass correlation coefficients for weight loss cluster randomized trials in primary care: The PROPEL trial.Clinical obesity · 2022Trial
- Using the NIH Research Methods Resources Website.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Blurring cluster randomized trials and observational studies: Two-Stage TMLE for subsampling, missingness, and few independent units.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Key considerations for designing, conducting and analysing a cluster randomized trial.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Sample size determination for external pilot cluster randomised trials with binary feasibility outcomes: a tutorial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Defining and estimating effects in cluster randomized trials: A methods comparison.Statistics in medicine · 2023Review
- Two-Stage TMLE to reduce bias and improve efficiency in cluster randomized trials.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Neighborhood and racial influences on triple negative breast cancer: evidence from Northeast Ohio.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Analysis of multiple-period group randomized trials: random coefficients model or repeated measures ANOVA?Trials · 2022Article
- Can home care work be organized to promote musculoskeletal health for workers? Study protocol for the Norwegian GoldiCare cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Common Methodological Problems in Randomized Controlled Trials of Preventive Interventions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2021Review
- The Importance of Evaluating Health Disparities Research.American journal of public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to summarize current practices for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes and to offer recommendations to improve future trials. We searched for group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes that were published or online in peer-reviewed journals in 2011-15. During 2016-17, in Bethesda MD, we reviewed 123 articles from 76 journals to characterize their design and their methods for sample size estimation and data analysis. Only 66 (53.7%) of the articles reported appropriate methods for sample size estimation. Only 63 (51.2%) reported exclusively appropriate methods for analysis. These findings suggest that many investigators do not adequately attend to the methodological challenges inherent in group-randomized trials. These practices can lead to underpowered studies, to an inflated type 1 error rate, and to inferences that mislead readers. Investigators should work with biostatisticians or other methodologists familiar with these issues. Funders and editors should ensure careful methodological review of applications and manuscripts. Reviewers should ensure that studies are properly planned and analyzed. These steps are needed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of group-randomized trials. The Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken several steps to address these issues. ODP offers an online course on the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. ODP is working to increase the number of methodologists who serve on grant review panels. ODP has developed standard language for the Application Guide and the Review Criteria to draw investigators' attention to these issues. Finally, ODP has created a new Research Methods Resources website to help investigators, reviewers, and NIH staff better understand these issues.
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.