Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice

Ref ID 708
First Author M. Richardson
Journal PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing 2016
URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151818
Keywords • Cochrane
• General medical
• Risk of bias
• Error
Problem(s) • Flawed risk of bias undertaken
• Inflexible methods to complex questions
• Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
Number of systematic reviews included 50
Summary of Findings Only 56% reviews identified that cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the eligibility criteria. For reporting cluster-RCTs, only 24% reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five cluster-RCT-specific risk-of bias criteria. For analysing cluster-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only 33% provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted cluster-RCTs, only 38% excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes