↓ Skip to main content

The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
Published in
Trials, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1685-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah J. Arnup, Andrew B. Forbes, Brennan C. Kahan, Katy E. Morgan, Joanne E. McKenzie

Abstract

The cluster randomised crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomisation or parallel group cluster randomisation is not feasible or practical. Our aim is to stimulate discussion on the content of a reporting guideline for CRXO trials and to assess the reporting quality of published CRXO trials. We undertook a systematic review of CRXO trials. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus as well as citation searches of CRXO methodological articles were conducted to December 2014. Reporting quality was assessed against both modified items from 2010 CONSORT and 2012 cluster trials extension and other proposed quality measures. Of the 3425 records identified through database searching, 83 trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were infrequently identified as "cluster randomis(z)ed crossover" in title (n = 7, 8%) or abstract (n = 21, 25%), and a rationale for the design was infrequently provided (n = 20, 24%). Design parameters such as the number of clusters and number of periods were well reported. Discussion of carryover took place in only 17 trials (20%). Sample size methods were only reported in 58% (n = 48) of trials. A range of approaches were used to report baseline characteristics. The analysis method was not adequately reported in 23% (n = 19) of trials. The observed within-cluster within-period intracluster correlation and within-cluster between-period intracluster correlation for the primary outcome data were not reported in any trial. The potential for selection, performance, and detection bias could be evaluated in 30%, 81%, and 70% of trials, respectively. There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting in CRXO trials. Given the unique features of a CRXO trial, it is important to develop a CONSORT extension. Consensus amongst trialists on the content of such a guideline is essential.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Mathematics 2 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%