Cited by 442Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials

Open access
Donner, Allan, Klar, Neil·2004·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

It is now well known that standard statistical procedures become invalidated when applied to cluster randomized trials in which the unit of inference is the individual. A resulting consequence is that researchers conducting such trials are faced with a multitude of design choices, including selection of the primary unit of inference, the degree to which clusters should be matched or stratified by prognostic factors at baseline, and decisions related to cluster subsampling. Moreover, application of ethical principles developed for individually randomized trials may also require modification. We discuss several topics related to these issues, with emphasis on the choices that must be made in the planning stages of a trial and on some potential pitfalls to be avoided.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.94.3.416

Cites

51 of 51 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [1]Cornfield J. Randomization by group: a formal analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;108:100–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [7]Hutton JL. Are distinctive ethical principles required for cluster Randomized controlled trials? Stat Med. 2001;20:473–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [15]Feldman HA. Selecting endpoint variables for a community intervention trial. Ann Epidemiol. 1997;7(suppl):S78–S88. [Google Scholar]
  4. [23]Klar N, Donner A. The merits of matching in community intervention trials: a cautionary tale. Stat Med. 1997;16:1753–1764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [26]Piantadosi S. Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Perspective. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1997.
  6. [45]Murray DM. Design and Analysis of Group-Randomised Trials. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc; 1998.
  7. [48]Koepsell TD, Wagner EH, Cheadle AC, et al. Selected methodological issues in evaluating community-based health promotion programs. Annu Rev Public Health. 1992;13:13–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donner, A., & Klar, N.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2004-03
Volume
94
Issue
3
Pages
416-422
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2097334037
Cited by
442
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 23
FWCI
11.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
cluster matching, prognostic factors, trial design, ethical principles, statistical validity
MeSH terms
Humans, Informed Consent, Models, Statistical, Epidemiologic Research Design, Public Health Practice, Bias, 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