ArticleTrials2025
Different types of cluster membership in parallel-group cluster-randomised trials, where the clusters are institutions: a classification system to aid identification, with six proposed designs.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFour main types of cluster-randomised trial (CRT) are well known: parallel-group (PG), factorial, stepped-wedge and crossover designs. This established typology relates to how clusters are exposed to intervention(s) or control(s) during the trial. Published guidance is lacking on how to link design features to how individuals within clusters may be exposed and measured. Thus, the aim of this paper was to develop a classification system for different types of cluster membership in CRTs, focussing on PG designs and building on our experiences of delivering a care home trial.
methodsThe classification system was developed in seven stages: (i) a scoping review was conducted to explore the use of open-cohort PG-CRTs in a range of settings; (ii) a version of the classification system was developed, using the stepped-wedge CRT typology; (iii) this was tested using a sample of published trials from the scoping review; (iv) a second version was developed, reviewed and further amendments made to aid clarity; (v) 15 trialists with experience of CRTs in a range of settings provided feedback in a 1-day, face-to-face user engagement workshop; (vi) a wider group of 39 trialists completed an online survey, providing examples and additional feedback; and (vii) all authors reviewed and approved the final version.
resultsSix types of cluster membership in PG-CRTs are proposed: the closed-cohort and cross-sectional designs already established, a new-admission-continuous-recruitment, open-cohort with discrete-recruitment, open-cohort with continuous-recruitment, and a non-standard closed-cohort design. The final classification system is made up of six core design features and five additional design considerations. Diagrams of each type of cluster membership are introduced and used to illustrate examples.
conclusionsImplications of distinctions between the six types of cluster membership for the statistical analysis require further research. CONSORT guidance needs updating to include specific guidance on reporting the type of cluster membership alongside the description of how design features apply to clusters. Further methodological research is required into both the statistical and the practical implications of adopting previously unlabelled but frequently used types of cluster membership.
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.