Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care

Background Evidence suggests that cluster randomized trials are often poorly designed and analysed. There is little recent research on the methodologic quality of cluster randomized trials and none focuses on primary health care where these trials are increasingly common. Methods We conducted a systematic review of recent cluster randomized trials in primary health care, searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also searched for unpublished trials in conference proceedings, and the UK National Research Register. We assess methodologic quality using a checklist, articulate problems facing investigators conducting these trials, and examine the extent to which carrying out a cluster randomized trial (as opposed to an individually randomized trial) in primary care may reduce power. Results We found 367 trial reports. Many trials were reported more than once. We characterize 152 independent cluster randomized trials in primary health care published between 1997 and 2000, and brie‘y describe 47 trials unpublished at December 2000. The quality of design and analysis was variable. Of published trials reporting sample size calculations 20% accounted for clustering in these calculations, 59% of published trials accounted for clustering in analyses. Unpublished trials were more recent and of higher quality. Reporting quality was better in journals reporting more cluster randomized trials. Many trial investigators reported problems with adherence to protocol, recruitment and type of intervention. Conclusions Methodologic quality of cluster randomized trials in primary health care is variable and reporting needs improvement. The use of cluster randomization should be indicated in the title or abstract so these kinds of trials are easier to identify. Communicating appropriate methodology to health care researchers continues to be a challenge. Cluster randomized trials should always be piloted and information from pilots and unsuccessful trials shared more widely. Introduction Cluster randomized trials, in which groups or clusters of individuals rather than the individuals themselves are randomized to intervention and control groups, are increasingly popular and particularly common in primary health care. This is because much current primary health service research centres on interventions to improve practice [1], often involving changes in patient behaviour, health professional behaviour, or organization. Controlled trials randomizing individual

[1]  Peter Jüni,et al.  Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. , 2002, JAMA.

[2]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[3]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[4]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[5]  S G Thompson,et al.  Analysis of cluster randomized trials with repeated cross-sectional binary measurements. , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  M K Campbell,et al.  Extending the CONSORT statement to cluster randomized trials: for discussion. , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  A. Donner,et al.  Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomised Trials , 2001 .

[8]  K. Chi,et al.  The standard of reporting of health-related quality of life in clinical cancer trials. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  George Hripcsak,et al.  Considering clustering: a methodological review of clinical decision support system studies , 2000, AMIA.

[10]  B. Hawkins The CONSORT statement: will it lead to improved reporting of clinical trials in ophthalmology? Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. , 1999, Archives of ophthalmology.

[11]  C. Weel Background Paper: International research and the discipline of family medicine , 1999 .

[12]  J. Sterne,et al.  Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[13]  M K Campbell,et al.  Cluster randomised trials: time for improvement , 1998, BMJ.

[14]  J M Bland,et al.  Trials which randomize practices II: sample size. , 1998, Family practice.

[15]  J M Bland,et al.  Trials which randomize practices I: how should they be analysed? , 1998, Family practice.

[16]  P. J. Smith,et al.  Are community health interventions evaluated appropriately? A review of six journals. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  Reed Jacobson,et al.  Microsoft Excel 97 : ステップバイステップ , 1997 .

[18]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[19]  A Donner,et al.  Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of community intervention trials. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  J. Simpson,et al.  Accounting for cluster randomization: a review of primary prevention trials, 1990 through 1993. , 1995, American journal of public health.

[21]  D. Feenan Research and development in primary care. , 1995 .

[22]  E. Yano,et al.  Helping practices reach primary care goals. Lessons from the literature. , 1995, Archives of internal medicine.

[23]  E. Yano,et al.  Helping Practices Reach Primary Care Goals , 1995 .

[24]  A Donner,et al.  Methods for comparing event rates in intervention studies when the unit of allocation is a cluster. , 1994, American journal of epidemiology.

[25]  B. Leese,et al.  Research and development in primary care. , 1992, Occasional paper.

[26]  A Donner,et al.  A methodological review of non-therapeutic intervention trials employing cluster randomization, 1979-1989. , 1990, International journal of epidemiology.