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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |