Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care

Author:

Eldridge Sandra M1,Ashby Deborah2,Feder Gene S3,Rudnicka Alicja R2,Ukoumunne Obioha C4

Affiliation:

1. Centre for General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Community Health Sciences, Barts and the London, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK

2. Wolfson Institute for Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK

3. Centre for General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Community Health Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK

4. Department of Public Health Sciences, King's College London, UK

Abstract

Background Evidence suggests that cluster randomized trials are often poorly designed and analysed. There is little recent research on the methodologic quality of cluster randomized trials and none focuses on primary health care where these trials are increasingly common. Methods We conducted a systematic review of recent cluster randomized trials in primary health care, searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also searched for unpublished trials in conference proceedings, and the UK National Research Register. We assess methodologic quality using a checklist, articulate problems facing investigators conducting these trials, and examine the extent to which carrying out a cluster randomized trial (as opposed to an individually randomized trial) in primary care may reduce power. Results We found 367 trial reports. Many trials were reported more than once. We characterize 152 independent cluster randomized trials in primary health care published between 1997 and 2000, and brie‘y describe 47 trials unpublished at December 2000. The quality of design and analysis was variable. Of published trials reporting sample size calculations 20% accounted for clustering in these calculations, 59% of published trials accounted for clustering in analyses. Unpublished trials were more recent and of higher quality. Reporting quality was better in journals reporting more cluster randomized trials. Many trial investigators reported problems with adherence to protocol, recruitment and type of intervention. Conclusions Methodologic quality of cluster randomized trials in primary health care is variable and reporting needs improvement. The use of cluster randomization should be indicated in the title or abstract so these kinds of trials are easier to identify. Communicating appropriate methodology to health care researchers continues to be a challenge. Cluster randomized trials should always be piloted and information from pilots and unsuccessful trials shared more widely. Introduction Cluster randomized trials, in which groups or clusters of individuals rather than the individuals themselves are randomized to intervention and control groups, are increasingly popular and particularly common in primary health care. This is because much current primary health service research centres on interventions to improve practice [1], often involving changes in patient behaviour, health professional behaviour, or organization. Controlled trials randomizing individual

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3