Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41198204›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Researchers' views of risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: a qualitative interview study.

Christina L Easter, Caroline Kristunas, Sheila Greenfield, Karla Hemming

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Christina L EasterDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK c.l.easter@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7028-1421
Caroline KristunasCancer UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8945-4671
Sheila GreenfieldDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-4114
Karla HemmingDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2226-6550

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCluster randomised trials (CRTs) can be at risk of bias driven by differential identification and recruitment of participants across treatments, posing a threat to the validity of findings. We explored the awareness and importance, among CRT researchers, of the recommended bias mitigation measures.

designQualitative interview study using semistructured interviews.

participantsParticipants were researchers involved in conducting CRTs, including investigators, statisticians and trial coordinators. 24 participants, including statisticians (n=13, 54.2%), clinical investigators (n=9, 37.5%) and trial coordinators (n=2, 8.3%), were interviewed; with representation from the UK (n=10, 41.7%), Australia (n=5, 20.8%) and the USA (n=4, 16.7%).

resultsParticipants exhibited differing levels of knowledge related to biases. Some participants demonstrated high levels of knowledge, but we also identified prevalent misconceptions, with some evidence of superficial knowledge. While some participants worked in collaborative teams, other teams' responsibilities were delineated, and this impacted on how knowledge of biases was shared and acted on. Logistical and practical issues could prevent known solutions to mitigate biases being implemented. Biases also manifested because of a perception from participant recruiters that the purpose of research is for participant benefit rather than producing generalisable knowledge; and a normalisation or expectation that CRTs produce a lower level of evidence.

conclusionsThere is an urgent need to ensure that CRTs are free from risks of bias. Mitigation measures are either not known, not practical or unconsciously subverted. More education and collaborative working might help. Preventing subconscious bias during participant recruitment and dispelling the myth that CRTs produce lower levels of evidence would require a change in culture.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelAdultBiasFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchQUALITATIVE RESEARCHResearch DesignSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID41198204
PMCPMC12593486

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.