OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of risks of bias in cluster-randomized trials of individual-level interventions, according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review undertaken in duplicate of a random sample of 40 primary reports of cluster-randomized trials of individual-level interventions. RESULTS: The most common reported reasons for adopting cluster randomization were the need to avoid contamination (17, 42.5%) and practical considerations (14, 35%). Of the 40 trials all but one was assessed as being at risk of bias. A majority (27, 67.5%) were assessed as at risk due to the timing of identification and recruitment of participants; many (21, 52.5%) due to an apparent lack of adequate allocation concealment; and many due to selectively reported results (22, 55%), arising from a mixture of reasons including lack of documentation of primary outcome. Other risks mostly occurred infrequently. CONCLUSION: Many cluster-randomized trials evaluating individual-level interventions appear to be at risk of bias, mostly due to identification and recruitment biases. We recommend that investigators carefully consider the need for cluster randomization; follow recommended procedures to mitigate risks of identification and recruitment bias; and adhere to good reporting practices including clear documentation of primary outcome and allocation concealment methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Easter et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: