A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality

39Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Previous reviews of cluster randomised trials have been critical of the quality of the trials reviewed, but none has explored determinants of the quality of these trials in a specific field over an extended period of time. Recent work suggests that correct conduct and reporting of these trials may require more than published guidelines. In this review, our aim was to assess the quality of cluster randomised trials conducted in residential facilities for older people, and to determine whether (1) statistician involvement in the trial and (2) strength of journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement influence quality. Methods. We systematically identified trials randomising residential facilities for older people, or parts thereof, without language restrictions, up to the end of 2010, using National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed and hand-searching. We based quality assessment criteria largely on the extended CONSORT statement for cluster randomised trials. We assessed statistician involvement based on statistician co-authorship, and strength of journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement from journal websites. Results: 73 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 (27%) reported accounting for clustering in sample size calculations and 54 (74%) in the analyses. In 29 trials (40%), methods used to identify/recruit participants were judged by us to have potentially caused bias or reporting was unclear to reach a conclusion. Some elements of quality improved over time but this appeared not to be related to the publication of the extended CONSORT statement for these trials. Trials with statistician/epidemiologist co-authors were more likely to account for clustering in sample size calculations (unadjusted odds ratio 5.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 26.0) and analyses (unadjusted OR 3.2, 1.2 to 8.5). Journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement was not associated with trial quality. Conclusions: Despite international attempts to improve methods in cluster randomised trials, important quality limitations remain amongst these trials in residential facilities. Statistician involvement on trial teams may be more effective in promoting quality than further journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Funding bodies and journals should promote statistician involvement and co-authorship in addition to adherence to CONSORT guidelines. © 2013 Diaz-Ordaz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

References Powered by Scopus

Consort 2010 statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials

1516Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

CONSORT statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials

1215Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Effect of bright light and melatonin on cognitive and noncognitive function in elderly residents of group care facilities: A randomized controlled trial

697Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

90Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Methodological quality and reporting of generalized linear mixed models in clinical medicine (2000-2012): A systematic review

86Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

How big should the pilot study for my cluster randomised trial be?

74Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Diaz-Ordaz, K., Froud, R., Sheehan, B., & Eldridge, S. (2013). A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-127

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 16

52%

Researcher 9

29%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

13%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 11

52%

Nursing and Health Professions 5

24%

Computer Science 3

14%

Social Sciences 2

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free