Cited by 153Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Analysis of a trial randomised in clusters: Table 1

Open access
Kerry, Sally M, Bland, J Martin·1998·BMJ

Abstract

A cluster randomised study is one where a group of subjects are randomised to the same treatment together—for example, when women in some districts are offered breast cancer screening and compared with women in other districts, or when the patients of general practitioners who have been given special training are compared with the patients of those who have not.1 Several techniques exist for analysing the data from such studies, but the essence of them is that the experimental unit (district or general practitioner) is the unit of analysis.2 A simple approach is to construct a summary statistic for each cluster and then analyse these summary values. The idea is similar to the analysis of repeated measurements on the same subject, where we construct a single summary …

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 · 10.1136/bmj.316.7124.54

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • 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 Kerry 1998

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kerry, S. M., & Bland, J. M.
Affiliations
St George's, University of London (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-01-03
Volume
316
Issue
7124
Pages
54
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1977759528
Cited by
153
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
11.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (submittedVersion)
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, summary statistics, experimental units, repeated measures, general practitioners, breast cancer screening
MeSH terms
Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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