The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysis of a trial randomised in clusters: Table 1
Open accessAbstract
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 …
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Analysis of serial measurements in medical research.
Matthews, J. N. S., Altman, D. G., Campbell, M. J., & Royston, P. J. (1990) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.300.6719.230 · Cited by 3,137
Bland, J. M., & Kerry, S. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7108.600 · Cited by 755
Statistics Notes: Units of analysis
Altman, D. G., & Martin Bland, J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1874 · Cited by 271
Statistics Notes: The use of transformation when comparing two means
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7039.1153 · Cited by 270
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Carman, W. F., Elder, A. G., Wallace, L. A., McAulay, K., Walker, A., Murray, G. D., & Stott, D. J. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)05190-9 · Cited by 760
Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments
Murray, D. M., Varnell, S. P., & Blitstein, J. L. (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.423 · Cited by 677
Mansournia, M. A., & Altman, D. G. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i189 · Cited by 434
Covariate Balance in Simple, Stratified and Clustered Comparative Studies
Hansen, B. B., & Bowers, J. (2008) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/08-sts254 · Cited by 414
Patient Outcomes in Simulation-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review
Zendejas, B., Brydges, R., Wang, A. T., & Cook, D. A. (2013) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2264-5 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Kerry, S. M., & Bland, J. M.
- Affiliations
- St George's, University of London (GB)
- ORCID
- Kerry, Sally M
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-01-03
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 7124
- Pages
- 54
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC2665333
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- 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
