Cargando…

The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality

BACKGROUND: The cluster randomised crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomisation or parallel group cluster randomisation is not feasible or practical. Our aim is to stimulate discussion on the content of a reporting guideline for CRXO trials and to as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arnup, Sarah J., Forbes, Andrew B., Kahan, Brennan C., Morgan, Katy E., McKenzie, Joanne E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5142135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27923384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1685-6
_version_ 1782472730968326144
author Arnup, Sarah J.
Forbes, Andrew B.
Kahan, Brennan C.
Morgan, Katy E.
McKenzie, Joanne E.
author_facet Arnup, Sarah J.
Forbes, Andrew B.
Kahan, Brennan C.
Morgan, Katy E.
McKenzie, Joanne E.
author_sort Arnup, Sarah J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The cluster randomised crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomisation or parallel group cluster randomisation is not feasible or practical. Our aim is to stimulate discussion on the content of a reporting guideline for CRXO trials and to assess the reporting quality of published CRXO trials. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of CRXO trials. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus as well as citation searches of CRXO methodological articles were conducted to December 2014. Reporting quality was assessed against both modified items from 2010 CONSORT and 2012 cluster trials extension and other proposed quality measures. RESULTS: Of the 3425 records identified through database searching, 83 trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were infrequently identified as “cluster randomis(z)ed crossover” in title (n = 7, 8%) or abstract (n = 21, 25%), and a rationale for the design was infrequently provided (n = 20, 24%). Design parameters such as the number of clusters and number of periods were well reported. Discussion of carryover took place in only 17 trials (20%). Sample size methods were only reported in 58% (n = 48) of trials. A range of approaches were used to report baseline characteristics. The analysis method was not adequately reported in 23% (n = 19) of trials. The observed within-cluster within-period intracluster correlation and within-cluster between-period intracluster correlation for the primary outcome data were not reported in any trial. The potential for selection, performance, and detection bias could be evaluated in 30%, 81%, and 70% of trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting in CRXO trials. Given the unique features of a CRXO trial, it is important to develop a CONSORT extension. Consensus amongst trialists on the content of such a guideline is essential. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1685-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5142135
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51421352016-12-15 The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality Arnup, Sarah J. Forbes, Andrew B. Kahan, Brennan C. Morgan, Katy E. McKenzie, Joanne E. Trials Research BACKGROUND: The cluster randomised crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomisation or parallel group cluster randomisation is not feasible or practical. Our aim is to stimulate discussion on the content of a reporting guideline for CRXO trials and to assess the reporting quality of published CRXO trials. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of CRXO trials. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus as well as citation searches of CRXO methodological articles were conducted to December 2014. Reporting quality was assessed against both modified items from 2010 CONSORT and 2012 cluster trials extension and other proposed quality measures. RESULTS: Of the 3425 records identified through database searching, 83 trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were infrequently identified as “cluster randomis(z)ed crossover” in title (n = 7, 8%) or abstract (n = 21, 25%), and a rationale for the design was infrequently provided (n = 20, 24%). Design parameters such as the number of clusters and number of periods were well reported. Discussion of carryover took place in only 17 trials (20%). Sample size methods were only reported in 58% (n = 48) of trials. A range of approaches were used to report baseline characteristics. The analysis method was not adequately reported in 23% (n = 19) of trials. The observed within-cluster within-period intracluster correlation and within-cluster between-period intracluster correlation for the primary outcome data were not reported in any trial. The potential for selection, performance, and detection bias could be evaluated in 30%, 81%, and 70% of trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting in CRXO trials. Given the unique features of a CRXO trial, it is important to develop a CONSORT extension. Consensus amongst trialists on the content of such a guideline is essential. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1685-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5142135/ /pubmed/27923384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1685-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Arnup, Sarah J.
Forbes, Andrew B.
Kahan, Brennan C.
Morgan, Katy E.
McKenzie, Joanne E.
The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
title The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
title_full The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
title_fullStr The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
title_full_unstemmed The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
title_short The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
title_sort quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5142135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27923384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1685-6
work_keys_str_mv AT arnupsarahj thequalityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT forbesandrewb thequalityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT kahanbrennanc thequalityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT morgankatye thequalityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT mckenziejoannee thequalityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT arnupsarahj qualityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT forbesandrewb qualityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT kahanbrennanc qualityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT morgankatye qualityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality
AT mckenziejoannee qualityofreportinginclusterrandomisedcrossovertrialsproposalforreportingitemsandanassessmentofreportingquality