Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32460815›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of multicentre randomised trials: a survey to establish current practice.

Elizabeth J Conroy, Jane M Blazeby, Girvan Burnside, Jonathan A Cook, Carrol Gamble

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prediction of Rehospitalization in Cardiac Bypass Surgery.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Elizabeth J ConroyDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, a member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK. ejconroy@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4858-727X
Jane M BlazebyCentre for Surgical Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-3330
Girvan BurnsideDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, a member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7398-1346
Jonathan A CookCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4156-6989
Carrol GambleDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, a member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3021-1955

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2015-08-082Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Research Trainees Coordinating Centre DRF-2015-08-082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient outcomes can depend on the treating centre, or health professional, delivering the intervention. A health professional's skill in delivery improves with experience, meaning that outcomes may be associated with learning. Considering differences in intervention delivery at trial design will ensure that any appropriate adjustments can be made during analysis. This work aimed to establish practice for the allowance of clustering and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised multicentre trials.

methodsA survey that drew upon quotes from existing guidelines, references to relevant publications and example trial scenarios was delivered. Registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units were invited to participate.

resultsForty-four Units participated (N = 50). Clustering was managed through design by stratification, more commonly by centre than by treatment provider. Managing learning by design through defining a minimum expertise level for treatment provider was common (89%). One-third reported experience in expertise-based designs. The majority of Units had adjusted for clustering during analysis, although approaches varied. Analysis of learning was rarely performed for the main analysis (n = 1), although it was explored by other means. The insight behind the approaches used within and reasons for, or against, alternative approaches were provided.

conclusionsWidespread awareness of challenges in designing and analysing multicentre trials is identified. Approaches used, and opinions on these, vary both across and within Units, indicating that approaches are dependent on the type of trial. Agreeing principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios should be considered.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisResearch DesignSurgical Procedures, OperativeBiomedical ResearchClinical CompetenceCooperative BehaviorEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Support as TopicTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomClusteringLearningSurgical interventionSurveyTrial analysisTrial designTrials, Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical trial, Randomised controlled trial, Complex intervention

Identifiers

PMID32460815
PMCPMC7251810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.