Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8

N M Ivers, M Taljaard, S Dixon, C Bennett, A McRae, J Taleban, Z Skea, J C Brehaut, R F Boruch, M P Eccles, J M Grimshaw, C Weijer, M Zwarenstein, A Donner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

82 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials.

Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting.

Data sources A validated Medline search strategy.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8.

Results There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals.

Conclusion The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberd5886
Number of pages14
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume343
Issue number-
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 26 Sep 2011

Fingerprint

Journal Impact Factor
Publications
Guidelines
Manuscripts
Information Storage and Retrieval
Lost to Follow-Up
Random Allocation
Language
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Cite this

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology : review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8. / Ivers, N M; Taljaard, M; Dixon, S; Bennett, C; McRae, A; Taleban, J; Skea, Z; Brehaut, J C; Boruch, R F; Eccles, M P; Grimshaw, J M; Weijer, C; Zwarenstein, M; Donner, A.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 343, No. -, d5886, 26.09.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ivers, NM, Taljaard, M, Dixon, S, Bennett, C, McRae, A, Taleban, J, Skea, Z, Brehaut, JC, Boruch, RF, Eccles, MP, Grimshaw, JM, Weijer, C, Zwarenstein, M & Donner, A 2011, 'Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8', British Medical Journal, vol. 343, no. -, d5886. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5886
Ivers, N M ; Taljaard, M ; Dixon, S ; Bennett, C ; McRae, A ; Taleban, J ; Skea, Z ; Brehaut, J C ; Boruch, R F ; Eccles, M P ; Grimshaw, J M ; Weijer, C ; Zwarenstein, M ; Donner, A. / Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology : review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8. In: British Medical Journal. 2011 ; Vol. 343, No. -.
@article{c5573b2c7cb048c8a5e8db69752346bd,
title = "Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8",
abstract = "Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. Data sources A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. Results There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. Conclusion The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.",
author = "Ivers, {N M} and M Taljaard and S Dixon and C Bennett and A McRae and J Taleban and Z Skea and Brehaut, {J C} and Boruch, {R F} and Eccles, {M P} and Grimshaw, {J M} and C Weijer and M Zwarenstein and A Donner",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.d5886",
language = "English",
volume = "343",
journal = "BMJ",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "-",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology

T2 - review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8

AU - Ivers, N M

AU - Taljaard, M

AU - Dixon, S

AU - Bennett, C

AU - McRae, A

AU - Taleban, J

AU - Skea, Z

AU - Brehaut, J C

AU - Boruch, R F

AU - Eccles, M P

AU - Grimshaw, J M

AU - Weijer, C

AU - Zwarenstein, M

AU - Donner, A

PY - 2011/9/26

Y1 - 2011/9/26

N2 - Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. Data sources A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. Results There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. Conclusion The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

AB - Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. Data sources A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. Results There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. Conclusion The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.d5886

DO - 10.1136/bmj.d5886

M3 - Article

VL - 343

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 0959-8146

IS - -

M1 - d5886

ER -