SynthesisBMJ open2025
Role of recruitment bias in stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIncreased popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials (SW-CRT) highlights the importance of understanding and appropriate mitigation of sources of bias within this trial design. While current evidence suggests that 'conventional' cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are at a higher risk of recruitment bias than individually randomised trials, this review aims to estimate the risk of recruitment bias in SW-CRTs.
designSystematic review with search conducted on four databases. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using subdomain 1a (randomisation process) and 1b (timing of identification or recruitment of participants) of the Cochrane RoB tool 2.0 (extension for cluster RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library were searched on 9 February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: SW-CRTs published in 2023 were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened and extracted all eligible papers. RoB was assessed with the Cochrane RoB tool.
resultsOverall, 808 papers were screened, and 64 studies were included in the review. Most studies were deemed to have a high RoB (n=35, 55%), some concerns were noticed in 20 studies (31%), and 9 (14%) were considered to have a low RoB. The description of the randomisation process in the included papers was sometimes poorly reported (in 15 studies (23%) problems with the randomisation process were identified), and 21 studies (33%) had issues with sampling strategy (recruiting participants after randomisation by unmasked staff).
conclusionsThe review revealed that SW-CRTs are prone to recruitment bias, but the risks are comparable to cluster RCTs. When SW-CRTs are unable to recruit prior to randomisation, mitigation strategies could be implemented to reduce bias. A separate tool for RoB assessment in SW-CRTs is required to address the complexities of this trial design.
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.