title: Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Cluster randomised trials can be susceptible to a range of methodological problems. These problems are not commonly recognised by many researchers. In this paper we discuss the issues that can lead to bias in cluster trials.
  
  
  METHODS
  We used a sample of cluster randomised trials from a recent review and from a systematic review of hip protectors. We compared the mean age of participants between intervention groups in a sample of 'good' cluster trials with a sample of potentially biased trials. We also compared the effect sizes, in a funnel plot, between hip protector trials that used individual randomisation compared with those that used cluster randomisation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There is a tendency for cluster trials, with evidence methodological biases, to also show an age imbalance between treatment groups. In a funnel plot we show that all cluster trials show a large positive effect of hip protectors whilst individually randomised trials show a range of positive and negative effects, suggesting that cluster trials may be producing a biased estimate of effect.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Methodological biases in the design and execution of cluster randomised trials is frequent. Some of these biases associated with the use of cluster designs can be avoided through careful attention to the design of cluster trials. Firstly, if possible, individual allocation should be used. Secondly, if cluster allocation is required, then ideally participants should be identified before random allocation of the clusters. Third, if prior identification is not possible, then an independent recruiter should be used to recruit participants.
authors.affiliation: Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 2nd Floor Cancer Research Institute Building, 28 Yongon Dong, Chongno Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea. hahns@snu.ac.kr <hahns@snu.ac.kr>
authors.forename: Seokyung
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hahn
authors.forename: Suezann
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Puffer
authors.forename: David J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Torgerson
authors.forename: Judith
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Watson
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D016000:Cluster Analysis; D006620:Hip Fractures / Q000517:prevention & control; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D018579:Patient Selection; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D011482:Protective Devices; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D045808:Refusal to Participate; D012107:Research Design; D018401:Sample Size; D015983:Selection Bias
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 Feb 10;322(7282):355-7
references.pmid: 11159665
references.citation: BMJ. 2002 Apr 20;324(7343):947-50
references.pmid: 11964340
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Oct 4;327(7418):785-9
references.pmid: 14525877
references.citation: JAMA. 2000 Mar 15;283(11):1437-44
references.pmid: 10732933
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 23;343(21):1506-13
references.pmid: 11087879
references.citation: JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):125-8
references.pmid: 8015122
references.citation: Palliat Med. 2002 Jan;16(1):43-9
references.pmid: 11963450
references.citation: Clin Trials. 2004 Feb;1(1):80-90
references.pmid: 16281464
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2001 Dec 4;135(11):982-9
references.pmid: 11730399
references.citation: Clin Trials. 2005;2(2):119-24
references.pmid: 16279133
references.citation: Osteoporos Int. 2004 Sep;15(9):701-6
references.pmid: 14997286
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001255
references.pmid: 15266444
references.citation: JAMA. 1997 May 28;277(20):1605-11
references.pmid: 9168290
references.citation: JAMA. 1995 Nov 8;274(18):1456-8
references.pmid: 7474192
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Aug 13;4:21
references.pmid: 15310402
references.citation: BMJ. 1999 Apr 10;318(7189):980-3
references.pmid: 10195971