Cited by 12Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Incorrect Analyses of Cluster-Randomized Trials that Do Not Take Clustering and Nesting into Account Likely Lead to p -Values that Are Too Small

Open access
Golzarri-Arroyo, Lilian, Oakes, J. Michael, Brown, Andrew W., Allison, David B.·2020·Childhood Obesity

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/chi.2019.0142

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In the Aceves-Martins et al. study, the estimated means were unbiased and valid, but the standard errors, confidence intervals, and p-values were incorrect.

    “While the estimated means from the trial were unbiased and valid, the standard errors, confidence intervals, and p-values were incorrect.”

    From Evaluation of the type I error rate when using parametric bootstrap analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with binary outcomes and a small number of clusters (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

    In the main text (page not provided), the authors warn that Aceves-Martins et al.’s p-values could be severely miscalculated if clustering and nesting were ignored, and they give illustrative corrections. They do not establish that the trial’s reported values were incorrect: they ask the trial authors to clarify their analyses. Nor does the paper state that the estimated means were unbiased and valid or specifically assess the reported standard errors and confidence intervals. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Aceves-Martins et al. 2017 school-based cRCT, the analysis did not take clustering into account.

    “As an illustration, in a school-based cRCT published in 2017 by Aceves-Martins et al. [20], we detected that the analysis did not take clustering into account [6].”

    From Evaluation of the type I error rate when using parametric bootstrap analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with binary outcomes and a small number of clusters (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

    In the main text (page not provided), the source raises concern that the Aceves-Martins et al. analysis may not have accounted for clustering and nesting. It explicitly says the trial authors did not specify whether or how they accounted for them, and calls the omission apparent rather than established. The citing sentence states that omission as a definite finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Aceves-Martins et al. study, clustering and nesting of students within schools was incorrectly ignored, which led to smaller p-values than if clustering and nesting had been properly taken into account.

    “In the statistical analyses, clustering and nesting of students within schools was incorrectly ignored, which led to smaller p-values than what would have been obtained if clustering and nesting had been properly taken into account [6].”

    From Evaluation of the type I error rate when using parametric bootstrap analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with binary outcomes and a small number of clusters (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

    In the paper’s main text, the authors say that the Aceves-Martins analyses do not specify whether or how clustering and nesting were accounted for; they describe an apparent omission, not a confirmed one. They estimate that ignoring clustering could produce smaller p-values, but explicitly call their calculations crude approximations. The citing sentence presents both the omission and its effect as established facts. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]1. Aceves-Martins M, Llaurado ´ E, Tarro L, et al. A school-based, peerled, social marketing intervention to engage spanish adolescents in a healthy lifestyle (''We Are Cool''-Som la Pera Study): A parallelcluster randomized controlled study. Child Obes 2017;13:300-313.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Golzarri-Arroyo, L., Oakes, J. M., Brown, A. W., & Allison, D. B.
Affiliations
  • School of Public Health, Indiana University—Bloomington, Bloomington, IN.
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Allison, David B.
Venue
Childhood Obesity
Published
2020-03-01
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
65-66
ISSN
  • 2153-2168 (ISSN-L)
  • 2153-2176
OpenAlex
W3007660320
Cited by
12
References
10
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Childhood Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks Open (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R25HL124208)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R25DK099080)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
clustering, nesting, p-values, statistical power, type I error, analytical methods
MeSH terms
Healthy Lifestyle, Adolescent, Humans, Research Design, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Social Marketing, Pediatric Obesity

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