OBJECTIVES: To assess aspects of the internal validity of recently published cluster randomised trials and explore the reporting of information useful in assessing the external validity of these trials. DESIGN: Review of 34 cluster randomised trials in primary care published in 2004 and 2005 in seven journals (British Medical Journal, British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice, Preventive Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics). DATA SOURCES: National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed. DATA EXTRACTION: To assess aspects of internal validity we extracted data on appropriateness of sample size calculations and analyses, methods of identifying and recruiting individual participants, and blinding. To explore reporting of information useful in assessing external validity we extracted data on cluster eligibility, cluster inclusion and retention, cluster generalisability, and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to health providers in clusters. RESULTS: 21 (62%) trials accounted for clustering in sample size calculations and 30 (88%) in the analysis; about a quarter were potentially biased because of procedures surrounding recruitment and identification of patients; individual participants were blind to allocation status in 19 (56%) and outcome assessors were blind in 15 (44%). In almost half the reports, information relating to generalisability of clusters was poorly reported, and in two fifths there was no information about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster randomised trials are essential for evaluating certain types of interventions. Issues affecting their internal validity, such as appropriate sample size calculations and analysis, have been widely disseminated and are now better addressed by researchers. Blinding of those identifying and recruiting patients to allocation status is recommended but is not always carried out. There may be fewer barriers to internal validity in trials in which individual participants are not recruited. External validity seems poorly addressed in many trials, yet is arguably as important as internal validity in judging quality as a basis for healthcare intervention.
OBJECTIVES: To assess aspects of the internal validity of recently published cluster randomised trials and explore the reporting of information useful in assessing the external validity of these trials. DESIGN: Review of 34 cluster randomised trials in primary care published in 2004 and 2005 in seven journals (British Medical Journal, British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice, Preventive Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics). DATA SOURCES: National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed. DATA EXTRACTION: To assess aspects of internal validity we extracted data on appropriateness of sample size calculations and analyses, methods of identifying and recruiting individual participants, and blinding. To explore reporting of information useful in assessing external validity we extracted data on cluster eligibility, cluster inclusion and retention, cluster generalisability, and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to health providers in clusters. RESULTS: 21 (62%) trials accounted for clustering in sample size calculations and 30 (88%) in the analysis; about a quarter were potentially biased because of procedures surrounding recruitment and identification of patients; individual participants were blind to allocation status in 19 (56%) and outcome assessors were blind in 15 (44%). In almost half the reports, information relating to generalisability of clusters was poorly reported, and in two fifths there was no information about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster randomised trials are essential for evaluating certain types of interventions. Issues affecting their internal validity, such as appropriate sample size calculations and analysis, have been widely disseminated and are now better addressed by researchers. Blinding of those identifying and recruiting patients to allocation status is recommended but is not always carried out. There may be fewer barriers to internal validity in trials in which individual participants are not recruited. External validity seems poorly addressed in many trials, yet is arguably as important as internal validity in judging quality as a basis for healthcare intervention.
Authors: Antonia F H Smelt; Gerda M van der Weele; Jeanet W Blom; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Willem J J Assendelft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: David M Murray; Sherri L Pals; Stephanie M George; Andrey Kuzmichev; Gabriel Y Lai; Jocelyn A Lee; Ranell L Myles; Shakira M Nelson Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Monica Taljaard; Jessie McGowan; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Jamie C Brehaut; Andrew McRae; Martin P Eccles; Allan Donner Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Anna P B M Braeken; Lilian Lechner; Francis C J M van Gils; Ruud M A Houben; Daniëlle Eekers; Ton Ambergen; Gertrudis I J M Kempen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 4.430