Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33789717›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

Bayesian statistics in the design and analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials and their reporting quality: a methodological systematic review.

Benjamin G Jones, Adam J Streeter, Amy Baker, Rana Moyeed, Siobhan Creanor

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Benjamin G JonesMedical Statistics, Faculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Room N15, ITTC Building 1, Plymouth Science Park, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 8BX, UK. b.g.jones@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7374-1107
Adam J StreeterMedical Statistics, Faculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Room N15, ITTC Building 1, Plymouth Science Park, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 8BX, UK.
Amy BakerMedical Statistics, Faculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Room N15, ITTC Building 1, Plymouth Science Park, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 8BX, UK.
Rana MoyeedSchool of Computing, Electronics and Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Siobhan CreanorMedical Statistics, Faculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Room N15, ITTC Building 1, Plymouth Science Park, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 8BX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT), randomisation units are "clusters" such as schools or GP practices. This has methodological implications for study design and statistical analysis, since clustering often leads to correlation between observations which, if not accounted for, can lead to spurious conclusions of efficacy/effectiveness. Bayesian methodology offers a flexible, intuitive framework to deal with such issues, but its use within CRCT design and analysis appears limited. This review aims to explore and quantify the use of Bayesian methodology in the design and analysis of CRCTs, and appraise the quality of reporting against CONSORT guidelines.

methodsWe sought to identify all reported/published CRCTs that incorporated Bayesian methodology and papers reporting development of new Bayesian methodology in this context, without restriction on publication date or location. We searched Medline and Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Reporting quality metrics according to the CONSORT extension for CRCTs were collected, as well as demographic data, type and nature of Bayesian methodology used, journal endorsement of CONSORT guidelines, and statistician involvement.

resultsTwenty-seven publications were included, six from an additional hand search. Eleven (40.7%) were reports of CRCT results: seven (25.9%) were primary results papers and four (14.8%) reported secondary results. Thirteen papers (48.1%) reported Bayesian methodological developments, the remaining three (11.1%) compared different methods. Four (57.1%) of the primary results papers described the method of sample size calculation; none clearly accounted for clustering. Six (85.7%) clearly accounted for clustering in the analysis. All results papers reported use of Bayesian methods in the analysis but none in the design or sample size calculation.

conclusionsThe popularity of the CRCT design has increased rapidly in the last twenty years but this has not been mirrored by an uptake of Bayesian methodology in this context. Of studies using Bayesian methodology, there were some differences in reporting quality compared to CRCTs in general, but this study provided insufficient data to draw firm conclusions. There is an opportunity to further develop Bayesian methodology for the design and analysis of CRCTs in order to expand the accessibility, availability, and, ultimately, use of this approach.

Indexed as

Research DesignResearch ReportBayes TheoremCluster AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelBayesianCluster randomised trialCONSORT statementHierarchical modellingSample sizeStatistical power

Identifiers

PMID33789717
PMCPMC8015172

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.