Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care
Abstract
Background Evidence suggests that cluster randomized trials are often poorly designed and analysed. There is little recent research on the methodologic quality of cluster randomized trials and none focuses on primary health care where these trials are increasingly common. Methods We conducted a systematic review of recent cluster randomized trials in primary health care, searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also searched for unpublished trials in conference proceedings, and the UK National Research Register. We assess methodologic quality using a checklist, articulate problems facing investigators conducting these trials, and examine the extent to which carrying out a cluster randomized trial (as opposed to an individually randomized trial) in primary care may reduce power. Results We found 367 trial reports. Many trials were reported more than once. We characterize 152 independent cluster randomized trials in primary health care published between 1997 and 2000, and brie‘y describe 47 trials unpublished at December 2000. The quality of design and analysis was variable. Of published trials reporting sample size calculations 20% accounted for clustering in these calculations, 59% of published trials accounted for clustering in analyses. Unpublished trials were more recent and of higher quality. Reporting quality was better in journals reporting more cluster randomized trials. Many trial investigators reported problems with adherence to protocol, recruitment and type of intervention. Conclusions Methodologic quality of cluster randomized trials in primary health care is variable and reporting needs improvement. The use of cluster randomization should be indicated in the title or abstract so these kinds of trials are easier to identify. Communicating appropriate methodology to health care researchers continues to be a challenge. Cluster randomized trials should always be piloted and information from pilots and unsuccessful trials shared more widely. Introduction Cluster randomized trials, in which groups or clusters of individuals rather than the individuals themselves are randomized to intervention and control groups, are increasingly popular and particularly common in primary health care. This is because much current primary health service research centres on interventions to improve practice [1], often involving changes in patient behaviour, health professional behaviour, or organization. Controlled trials randomizing individual
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Additional elements for trial designs other than parallel group superiority trials are often not described in final trial reports and are infrequently specified in the protocol.
“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 [301]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 288
- Authors
- Eldridge, S. M., Ashby, D., Feder, G. S., Rudnicka, A. R., & Ukoumunne, O. C.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- University of London (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Eldridge, Sandra M
- Venue
- Clinical Trials
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 80-90
- ISSN
- 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-7753
- OpenAlex
- W2006632281
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 1.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- primary care, methodological quality, trial design, statistical power, reporting quality, unpublished trials, protocol adherence, trial recruitment, pilot trial, primary care research
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Primary Health Care, Research Design, 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