|Year Of Publishing
Risk of bias
Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Inflexible methods to complex questions
Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
|Number of systematic reviews included
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?