Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials

Seokyung Hahn, Suezann Puffer, David J Torgerson, Judith Watson, Seokyung Hahn, Suezann Puffer, David J Torgerson, Judith Watson

Abstract

Background: Cluster randomised trials can be susceptible to a range of methodological problems. These problems are not commonly recognised by many researchers. In this paper we discuss the issues that can lead to bias in cluster trials.

Methods: We used a sample of cluster randomised trials from a recent review and from a systematic review of hip protectors. We compared the mean age of participants between intervention groups in a sample of 'good' cluster trials with a sample of potentially biased trials. We also compared the effect sizes, in a funnel plot, between hip protector trials that used individual randomisation compared with those that used cluster randomisation.

Results: There is a tendency for cluster trials, with evidence methodological biases, to also show an age imbalance between treatment groups. In a funnel plot we show that all cluster trials show a large positive effect of hip protectors whilst individually randomised trials show a range of positive and negative effects, suggesting that cluster trials may be producing a biased estimate of effect.

Conclusion: Methodological biases in the design and execution of cluster randomised trials is frequent. Some of these biases associated with the use of cluster designs can be avoided through careful attention to the design of cluster trials. Firstly, if possible, individual allocation should be used. Secondly, if cluster allocation is required, then ideally participants should be identified before random allocation of the clusters. Third, if prior identification is not possible, then an independent recruiter should be used to recruit participants.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sources of bias in cluster trials
Figure 2
Figure 2
Standardised mean differences of patient age
Figure 3
Figure 3
Standardised mean difference by bias group and treatment significance
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of individually and cluster randomised trials

References

    1. Lindqust EF. Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. Houghton Mifflin Co, New York; 1940.
    1. Donner A, Klar NS. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomisation Trials in Health Research. Hodder Arnold London; 2000.
    1. Torgerson DJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? BMJ. 2001;322:355–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7282.355.
    1. Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J. Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ. 2003;327:785–788. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7418.785.
    1. Schulz KF. Subverting randomisation in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995. pp. 456–8.
    1. Kennedy AM, Grant A. Subversion of allocation in a randomised controlled trial. Control Clin Trials. 1997;18:77–8S. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)91044-8.
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials in obstetrics and gynaecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272:125–28. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.2.125.
    1. Kjaergaard LL, Villumsen J, Cluud C. Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:982–89.
    1. Grossman DC, Neckerman HJ, Koepsall TD, Liu PY, Asher KN, Beland K, Frey K, Rivara FP. Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1997;277:1605–11. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.20.1605.
    1. Jordhoy MS, Fayers PM, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, Kaasa S. Lack of concealment may lead to selection bias in cluster randomized trials of palliative care. Palliative Medicine. 2002;16:43–9. doi: 10.1191/0269216302pm523oa.
    1. Molloy DW, Guyatt GH, Russo R, Goeree R, O'Brien BJ, et al. Systematic implementation of and advance directive program in nursing homes: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;283:1437–44. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.11.1437.
    1. Farrin AJ, Russell IT, Torgerson D, Underwood M. Differential recruitment in a cluster-randomised trial in primary care – the experience of the UK Back pain, Exercise, Active management and Manipulation (UK BEAM) feasibility study. Clinical Trials. 2005.
    1. Kendrick D, Marsh P, Fielding K, Miller P. Preventing injuries in children: cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ. 1999;318:980–3.
    1. Eldridge SM, Ashby D, Feder GS, Rudnicka AR, Ukoumunne OC. Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care. Clinical Trials. 2004;1:80–90.
    1. Parker MJ, Gillespie LD, Gillespie WJ. The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2004. Hip Protectors for preventing hip fractures in the elderly (Cochrane Review)
    1. Birks YF, Porthouse J, Addie C, Loughney K, Saxon L, Baverstock M, Francis R, Reid DM, Watt I, Torgerson DJ, the Primary Care Hip Protector Trial Group Randomised Controlled Trial of Hip Protectors among Women Living in the Community. Osteoporosis International. 2004;15:701–06. doi: 10.1007/s00198-004-1599-0.
    1. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Niemi S, Pasanen M, Palvanen M, Javinen M, Vouri I. Prevention of hip fracture in elderly people with use of hip protector. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1506–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011233432101.
    1. King M, Davidson O, Taylor F, Haines A, Sharp D, Turner R. Effectiveness of teaching general practitioners skills in brief cognitive behaviour therapy to treat patients with depression: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2002;324:947–52. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7343.947.
    1. Bland JM. Cluster randomised trials in the medical literature: two bibliometric surveys. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2004;4:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-21.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться