Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297963›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Global health2021

Completeness of reporting and risks of overstating impact in cluster randomised trials: a systematic review.

Elizabeth L Turner, Alyssa C Platt, John A Gallis, Kaitlin Tetreault, Christina Easter, Joanne E McKenzie, Stephen Nash, Andrew B Forbes, Karla Hemming, CRT Binary Outcome Reporting Group

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Demystifying estimands in cluster-randomised trials.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors.

Elizabeth L TurnerDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: liz.turner@duke.edu.
Alyssa C PlattDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
John A GallisDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Kaitlin TetreaultDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Christina EasterInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Stephen NashDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Andrew B ForbesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Karla HemmingInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
CRT Binary Outcome Reporting Group

Funding

Support for QA/QC for Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002553 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S, MCNAMARA, JAMES O. · 2018 to 2023
$58.5M
Malaria diagnostic testing and conditional subsidies to target ACTs in the retail sector: the TESTsmART trialR01AI141444 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI PRUDHOMMEOMEARA, WENDY · 2018 to 2022
$3.6M
RESHAPE Diversity SupplementR01MH120649 · NIMH · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KOHRT, BRANDON ALAN · 2019 to 2023
$3.5M
Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health SRF-2017-10-002Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1Medical Research Council MR/T032448/1NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002553NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI141444NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH120649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Overstating the impact of interventions through incomplete or inaccurate reporting can lead to inappropriate scale-up of interventions with low impact. Accurate reporting of the impact of interventions is of great importance in global health research to protect scarce resources. In global health, the cluster randomised trial design is commonly used to evaluate complex, multicomponent interventions, and outcomes are often binary. Complete reporting of impact for binary outcomes means reporting both relative and absolute measures. We did a systematic review to assess reporting practices and potential to overstate impact in contemporary cluster randomised trials with binary primary outcome. We included all reports registered in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials of two-arm parallel cluster randomised trials with at least one binary primary outcome that were published in 2017. Of 73 cluster randomised trials, most (60 [82%]) showed incomplete reporting. Of 64 cluster randomised trials for which it was possible to evaluate, most (40 [63%]) reported results in such a way that impact could be overstated. Care is needed to report complete evidence of impact for the many interventions evaluated using the cluster randomised trial design worldwide.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignRisk

Identifiers

PMID34297963
PMCPMC9994534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.