The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Internal and external validity of cluster randomised trials: systematic review of recent trials
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess aspects of the internal validity of recently published cluster randomised trials and explore the reporting of information useful in assessing the external validity of these trials. DESIGN: Review of 34 cluster randomised trials in primary care published in 2004 and 2005 in seven journals (British Medical Journal, British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice, Preventive Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics). DATA SOURCES: National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed. DATA EXTRACTION: To assess aspects of internal validity we extracted data on appropriateness of sample size calculations and analyses, methods of identifying and recruiting individual participants, and blinding. To explore reporting of information useful in assessing external validity we extracted data on cluster eligibility, cluster inclusion and retention, cluster generalisability, and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to health providers in clusters. RESULTS: 21 (62%) trials accounted for clustering in sample size calculations and 30 (88%) in the analysis; about a quarter were potentially biased because of procedures surrounding recruitment and identification of patients; individual participants were blind to allocation status in 19 (56%) and outcome assessors were blind in 15 (44%). In almost half the reports, information relating to generalisability of clusters was poorly reported, and in two fifths there was no information about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster randomised trials are essential for evaluating certain types of interventions. Issues affecting their internal validity, such as appropriate sample size calculations and analysis, have been widely disseminated and are now better addressed by researchers. Blinding of those identifying and recruiting patients to allocation status is recommended but is not always carried out. There may be fewer barriers to internal validity in trials in which individual participants are not recruited. External validity seems poorly addressed in many trials, yet is arguably as important as internal validity in judging quality as a basis for healthcare intervention.
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
“Others have assessed about 40% of cluster trials to be at risk of these types of biases [2,7,28]; and sometimes this has been reported to be somewhat lower despite including many trials with post randomization recruitment [10,13].”
From Cluster randomized trials of individual-level interventions were at high risk of bias (2021) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“Such elements are often not described in final trial reports,299 300 301 302 and they are infrequently specified in the protocol.303”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [300]
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
Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322 · Cited by 7,217
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474
CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D. R., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · Cited by 2,557
Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions
Oakley, A., Strange, V., Bonell, C., Allen, E., & Stephenson, J. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413 · Cited by 1,247
Ukoumunne, Gulliford, M. C., Chinn, Sterne, & Burney, P. (1999) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta3050 · Cited by 1,211
What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.6-7.449 · Cited by 1,189
Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07816-9 · Cited by 952
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Murray DM. Design and analysis of group randomised trials. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
- Kerry SM, Bland JM. Sample size in cluster randomisation. BMJ 1998;316:549.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,270
Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America
Smith, M. A., Saunders, R., Stuckhardt, L., & McGinnis, J. M. (2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-3277 · Cited by 1,358
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
- Eldridge, S., Ashby, D., Bennett, C., Wakelin, M., & Feder, G.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Eldridge, Sandra
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2008-03-25
- Volume
- 336
- Issue
- 7649
- Pages
- 876-880
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- PMC
- PMC2323095
- OpenAlex
- W2047660576
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 2.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- internal validity, generalizability, trial reporting quality, sample size determination, blinding, participant recruitment, feasibility and acceptability
- MeSH terms
- Reproducibility of Results, 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
