OBJECTIVES: To examine whether cluster randomized trials (1) produce baseline imbalances between intervention and control conditions; (2) give results that are substantially different individually randomized trials; and (3) give different results when adjusted for unit of analysis error. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used 14 cluster randomized trials and 20 individualized trials of the same intervention (collaborative care for depression). We conducted a random effects meta-analysis to examine imbalance in baseline depression scores. We used meta-regression to test for differential effect size and heterogeneity between clustered and individualized studies. Unit of analysis error was corrected using a range of plausible published intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: There were no baseline imbalances in either cluster randomized (P=0.837) or individually randomized (P=0.737) studies. Cluster randomized studies gave almost identical estimates of effect size when compared to individually randomized studies (standardized mean difference, SMDcluster=0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17, 0.33; SMDindividual=0.24; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.36). Adjustment for clustering had minimal effect on clinical and statistical significance (pooled SMDICC 0.02=0.249 [95% CI: 0.174, 0.325] to SMDICC 0.05=0.258 [95% CI: 0.172, 0.345]). CONCLUSION: The additional effort and expense involved in cluster randomized trials needs to be justified when individualized studies might produce robust and believable results.
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether cluster randomized trials (1) produce baseline imbalances between intervention and control conditions; (2) give results that are substantially different individually randomized trials; and (3) give different results when adjusted for unit of analysis error. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used 14 cluster randomized trials and 20 individualized trials of the same intervention (collaborative care for depression). We conducted a random effects meta-analysis to examine imbalance in baseline depression scores. We used meta-regression to test for differential effect size and heterogeneity between clustered and individualized studies. Unit of analysis error was corrected using a range of plausible published intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: There were no baseline imbalances in either cluster randomized (P=0.837) or individually randomized (P=0.737) studies. Cluster randomized studies gave almost identical estimates of effect size when compared to individually randomized studies (standardized mean difference, SMDcluster=0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17, 0.33; SMDindividual=0.24; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.36). Adjustment for clustering had minimal effect on clinical and statistical significance (pooled SMDICC 0.02=0.249 [95% CI: 0.174, 0.325] to SMDICC 0.05=0.258 [95% CI: 0.172, 0.345]). CONCLUSION: The additional effort and expense involved in cluster randomized trials needs to be justified when individualized studies might produce robust and believable results.
Authors: An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-08
Authors: Kristen J Wells; John S Luque; Branko Miladinovic; Natalia Vargas; Yasmin Asvat; Richard G Roetzheim; Ambuj Kumar Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Anna D T Muntingh; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Harm W J van Marwijk; Philip Spinhoven; Willem J J Assendelft; Margot W M de Waal; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen; Herman J Adèr; Anton J L M van Balkom Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Paula P Schnurr; Matthew J Friedman; Thomas E Oxman; Allen J Dietrich; Mark W Smith; Brian Shiner; Elizabeth Forshay; Jiang Gui; Veronica Thurston Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Maartje Goorden; Moniek C Vlasveld; Johannes R Anema; Willem van Mechelen; Aartjan T F Beekman; Rob Hoedeman; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2014-09