Cited by 150Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Preventing Bias in Cluster Randomised Trials

Open access
Giraudeau, Bruno, Ravaud, Philippe·2009·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

Bruno Giraudeau and Philippe Ravaud discuss the difficulties in preventing selection bias and applying intention-to-treat analysis in cluster randomized trials, and propose some solutions.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000065

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • More eligibility criteria at the participant level increases the likelihood of differential inclusion.

    “We extracted the number of eligibility criteria at the participant level as more eligibility criteria increases the likelihood of differential inclusion [14].”

    From Cluster randomized trials of individual-level interventions were at high risk of bias (2021) · cites this paper as [14]

    The sections on comparability of groups and active recruitment describe differential recruitment and selection bias in cluster randomised trials. They do not say that having more participant-level eligibility criteria increases the likelihood of differential inclusion. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Knowledge of treatment condition at the time of patient recruitment is known to be a risk factor for differential identification and recruitment of participants across treatment arms, unless recruitment and identification are conducted by someone blind to the treatment allocation or the inclusion criteria are broad.

    “Knowledge of treatment condition at the time of patient recruitment is known to be a risk factor for differential identification and recruitment of participants across treatment arms [1,14,16,37], unless recruitment and identification are conducted by someone blind to the treatment allocation or the inclusion criteria are broad [2,11,14].”

    From Cluster randomized trials of individual-level interventions were at high risk of bias (2021) · cites this paper as [14]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Groves RM Dillman DA Eltinge JL Little RJA 2002 Survey nonresponse New York John Wiley & Sons 520

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Giraudeau, B., & Ravaud, P.
Affiliations
  • Université de Tours (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Giraudeau, Bruno
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2009-05-05
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
e1000065
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2065087661
Cited by
150
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
bias prevention, trial design, confounding, randomization
MeSH terms
Humans, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice 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