Cited by 734Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Issues in the meta-analysis of cluster randomized trials

Donner, Allan, Klar, Neil·2002·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Meta-analyses involving the synthesis of evidence from cluster randomization trials are being increasingly reported. These analyses raise challenging methodologic issues beyond those raised by meta-analyses which include only individually randomized trials. In this paper we review and comment on a selected number of these issues, including problems of study heterogeneity, difficulties in estimating design effects from individual trials and the choice of statistical methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1301

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cluster randomisation can overestimate treatment effect significance and inflate the nominal type I error rate unless clustering is properly adjusted for.

    “Cluster randomisation, for example by clinician or practice, can lead to overestimation of the significance of a treatment effect, resulting in an inflation of the nominal type I error rate, unless appropriate adjustment is made for the effects of clustering (Donner 2002;Kerry 1998).”

    From Interventions for self-harm in children and adolescents (2021) · cites this paper as Donner 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donner, A., & Klar, N.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Cancer Care Ontario (CA)
Corresponding author
Donner, Allan
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-09-20
Volume
21
Issue
19
Pages
2971-2980
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2135029321
Cited by
734
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 65
FWCI
25.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
meta-analysis, study heterogeneity, statistical analysis, methodological issues
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review