| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Checklists |
• MECIR |
| Aim | To assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews published in 2013 that included cluster randomised controlled trials against criteria developed from existing guidance. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 50 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 276 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |