Cited by 193Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000–8

Open access
Ivers, N. M., Taljaard, M., Dixon, S., Bennett, C., McRae, A., Taleban, J., Skea, Z., Brehaut, J. C. +6 more·2011·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. DESIGN: Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. DATA SOURCES: A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

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.d5886

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Inconsistent reporting, particularly for study duration, step intervals, and key operational details, limits reproducibility and makes cross-study comparisons more challenging.

    “At the same time, inconsistent reporting, particularly for study duration, step intervals, and key operational details, limits reproducibility and makes cross-study comparisons more challenging, echoing concerns that stronger and more consistent reporting standards are needed (116).”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [116]

    The Results report minimal overall improvement in reporting, and the Discussion (Statement of principal findings; page unavailable) calls for further improvements and possibly more stringent editorial policies. That supports the cited concern about reporting standards. The paper does not identify study duration or step intervals as particular gaps, or establish the claimed effects on reproducibility and cross-study comparisons. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [26]SJR—SCImago Journal and Country Rank. Science analysis. 2011. www.scimagojr.com.
  2. [32]Rotondi R. Selected topics in the meta-analysis of cluster randomized trials: aspects of evidence-synthesis and experimental design [PhD thesis]. University of Western Ontario, 2010.
  3. [35]Raab GM, Butcher I. Balance in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med 2001; 20: 351-65. 11180306

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ivers, N. M., Taljaard, M., Dixon, S., Bennett, C., McRae, A., Taleban, J., Skea, Z., Brehaut, J. C., Boruch, R. F., Eccles, M. P., Grimshaw, J. M., Weijer, C., Zwarenstein, M., & Donner, A.
Affiliations
  • Women's College Hospital (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (CA)
Corresponding author
Ivers, N. M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-09-26
Volume
343
Issue
sep26 1
Pages
d5886-d5886
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2010316693
Cited by
193
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 17
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Canada Research Chairs
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP89790, MOP85066)
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
CONSORT extension, reporting quality, methodological quality, reporting guidelines adherence, journal impact factor
MeSH terms
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines 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