Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Richardson, Marty, Garner, Paul, Donegan, Sarah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26982697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151818
_version_ 1782421460594196480
author Richardson, Marty
Garner, Paul
Donegan, Sarah
author_facet Richardson, Marty
Garner, Paul
Donegan, Sarah
author_sort Richardson, Marty
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance. METHODS: Criteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2(nd) December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria. RESULTS: The 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4794236
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47942362016-03-23 Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice Richardson, Marty Garner, Paul Donegan, Sarah PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance. METHODS: Criteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2(nd) December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria. RESULTS: The 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs. Public Library of Science 2016-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4794236/ /pubmed/26982697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151818 Text en © 2016 Richardson et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Richardson, Marty
Garner, Paul
Donegan, Sarah
Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice
title Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice
title_full Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice
title_fullStr Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice
title_full_unstemmed Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice
title_short Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice
title_sort cluster randomised trials in cochrane reviews: evaluation of methodological and reporting practice
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26982697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151818
work_keys_str_mv AT richardsonmarty clusterrandomisedtrialsincochranereviewsevaluationofmethodologicalandreportingpractice
AT garnerpaul clusterrandomisedtrialsincochranereviewsevaluationofmethodologicalandreportingpractice
AT donegansarah clusterrandomisedtrialsincochranereviewsevaluationofmethodologicalandreportingpractice