Cluster randomised trials in the medical literature: two bibliometric surveys

Clicks: 255
ID: 113029
2004
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality Improving Quality
0.0 /100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
Several reviews of published cluster randomised trials have reported that about half did not take clustering into account in the analysis, which was thus incorrect and potentially misleading. In this paper I ask whether cluster randomised trials are increasing in both number and quality of reporting. Computer search for papers on cluster randomised trials since 1980, hand search of trial reports published in selected volumes of the British Medical Journal over 20 years. There has been a large increase in the numbers of methodological papers and of trial reports using the term 'cluster random' in recent years, with about equal numbers of each type of paper. The British Medical Journal contained more such reports than any other journal. In this journal there was a corresponding increase over time in the number of trials where subjects were randomised in clusters. In 2003 all reports showed awareness of the need to allow for clustering in the analysis. In 1993 and before clustering was ignored in most such trials. Cluster trials are becoming more frequent and reporting is of higher quality. Perhaps statistician pressure works.
Reference Key
bland2004bmccluster Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors J Martin Bland;J Martin Bland;
Journal BMC medical research methodology
Year 2004
DOI
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-21
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.