Influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs

2022 ◽  
pp. 174077452110634
Author(s):  
David M Murray

Background. This article identifies the most influential methods reports for group-randomized trials and related designs published through 2020. Many interventions are delivered to participants in real or virtual groups or in groups defined by a shared interventionist so that there is an expectation for positive correlation among observations taken on participants in the same group. These interventions are typically evaluated using a group- or cluster-randomized trial, an individually randomized group treatment trial, or a stepped wedge group- or cluster-randomized trial. These trials face methodological issues beyond those encountered in the more familiar individually randomized controlled trial. Methods. PubMed was searched to identify candidate methods reports; that search was supplemented by reports known to the author. Candidate reports were reviewed by the author to include only those focused on the designs of interest. Citation counts and the relative citation ratio, a new bibliometric tool developed at the National Institutes of Health, were used to identify influential reports. The relative citation ratio measures influence at the article level by comparing the citation rate of the reference article to the citation rates of the articles cited by other articles that also cite the reference article. Results. In total, 1043 reports were identified that were published through 2020. However, 55 were deemed to be the most influential based on their relative citation ratio or their citation count using criteria specific to each of the three designs, with 32 group-randomized trial reports, 7 individually randomized group treatment trial reports, and 16 stepped wedge group-randomized trial reports. Many of the influential reports were early publications that drew attention to the issues that distinguish these designs from the more familiar individually randomized controlled trial. Others were textbooks that covered a wide range of issues for these designs. Others were “first reports” on analytic methods appropriate for a specific type of data (e.g. binary data, ordinal data), for features commonly encountered in these studies (e.g. unequal cluster size, attrition), or for important variations in study design (e.g. repeated measures, cohort versus cross-section). Many presented methods for sample size calculations. Others described how these designs could be applied to a new area (e.g. dissemination and implementation research). Among the reports with the highest relative citation ratios were the CONSORT statements for each design. Conclusions. Collectively, the influential reports address topics of great interest to investigators who might consider using one of these designs and need guidance on selecting the most appropriate design for their research question and on the best methods for design, analysis, and sample size.

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Murray ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Elizabeth L. Turner ◽  
Stephanie M. George

This article reviews the essential ingredients and innovations in the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. The methods literature for these trials has grown steadily since they were introduced to the biomedical research community in the late 1970s, and we summarize those developments. We review, in addition to the group-randomized trial, methods for two closely related designs, the individually randomized group treatment trial and the stepped-wedge group-randomized trial. After describing the essential ingredients for these designs, we review the most important developments in the evolution of their methods using a new bibliometric tool developed at the National Institutes of Health. We then discuss the questions to be considered when selecting from among these designs or selecting the traditional randomized controlled trial. We close with a review of current methods for the analysis of data from these designs, a case study to illustrate each design, and a brief summary.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adithya Cattamanchi ◽  
Rebecca R. Crowder ◽  
Alex Kityamuwesi ◽  
Noah Kiwanuka ◽  
Maureen Lamunu ◽  
...  

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Dubreucq ◽  
M. Faraldo ◽  
M. Abbes ◽  
B. Ycart ◽  
H. Richard-Lepouriel ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Self-stigma is highly prevalent in serious mental illness (SMI) and is associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes. Narrative enhancement and cognitive therapy (NECT) is a group-based intervention combining psychoeducation, cognitive restructuring and story-telling exercises to reduce self-stigma and its impact on recovery-related outcomes. Despite evidence of its effectiveness on self-stigma in schizophrenia-related disorders, it is unclear whether NECT can impact social functioning. Methods This is a 12-centre stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial of NECT effectiveness on social functioning in SMI, compared to treatment as usual. One hundred and twenty participants diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder will be recruited across the 12 sites. The 12 centres participating to the study will be randomized into two groups: one group (group 1) receiving the intervention at the beginning of the study (T0) and one group (group 2) being a control group for the first 6 months and receiving the intervention after (T1). Outcomes will be compared in both groups at T0 and T1, and 6-month and 12-month outcomes for groups 1 and 2 will be measured without a control group at T2 (to evaluate the stability of the effects over time). Evaluations will be conducted by assessors blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is personal and social performance compared across randomization groups. Secondary outcomes include self-stigma, self-esteem, wellbeing, quality of life, illness severity, depressive symptoms and personal recovery. Discussion NECT is a promising intervention for reducing self-stigma and improving recovery-related outcomes in SMI. If shown to be effective in this trial, it is likely that NECT will be implemented in psychiatric rehabilitation services with subsequent implications for routine clinical practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03972735. Trial registration date 31 May 2019.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdou Amza ◽  
Boubacar Kadri ◽  
Beido Nassirou ◽  
Ahmed M. Arzika ◽  
Ariana Austin ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends annual mass azithromycin distribution until districts drop below 5% prevalence of trachomatous inflammation—follicular (TF). Districts with very low TF prevalence may have little or no transmission of the ocular strains of Chlamydia trachomatis that cause trachoma, and additional rounds of mass azithromycin distribution may not be useful. Here, we describe the protocol for a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether mass azithromycin distribution can be stopped prior to the current WHO guidelines. Methods The Azithromycin Reduction to Reach Elimination of Trachoma (ARRET) study is a 1:1 community randomized non-inferiority trial designed to evaluate whether mass azithromycin distribution can be stopped in districts with baseline prevalence of TF under 20%. Communities in Maradi, Niger are randomized after baseline assessment either to continued annual mass azithromycin distribution or stopping annual azithromycin distribution over a 3-year period. We will compare the prevalence of ocular C. trachomatis (primary outcome), TF and other clinical signs of trachoma, and serologic markers of trachoma after 3 years. We hypothesize that stopping annual azithromycin distribution will be non-inferior to continued annual azithromycin distributions for all markers of trachoma prevalence and transmission. Discussion The results of this trial are anticipated to provide potentially guideline-changing evidence for when mass azithromycin distributions can be stopped in low TF prevalence areas. Trial registration number This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04185402). Registered December 4, 2019; prospectively registered pre-results.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc-Eric Nadeau ◽  
Justine L. Henry ◽  
Todd C. Lee ◽  
Émilie Bortolussi-Courval ◽  
Carole Goodine ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Medication overload or problematic polypharmacy is a major problem causing widespread harm, particularly to older adults. Taking multiple medications increases the risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), and residents in long-term care (LTC) are frequently prescribed 10 or more medications at once. One strategy to address this problem is for the physician and/or pharmacist to perform regular medication reviews; however, this process can be complicated and time-consuming. With a prescription review, medications may be decreased, changed, or stopped altogether. MedReviewRx is a software that runs an analysis using deprescribing rules to produce a report to guide medication reviews addressing medication overload for residents in LTC. Methods This study will employ a mixed methods effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 study design. To measure effectiveness, a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design is planned, which allows us to approximate a randomized clinical trial. Approximately 1000 residents living in LTC will be recruited from five facilities in New Brunswick. The study will begin with 3 months of baseline data on rates of deprescribing. Thereafter, every 3 months a new cluster will enter the intervention mode. The intervention consists of medication reviews augmented with the MedReviewRx software, which will be used by staff and clinicians in the facilities. The estimated study duration is 18 months and the main outcome will be the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed (reduced/stopped or changed to a safer alternative) in the 90 days following a prescription review. The goal is to study the impact of MedReviewRx on medication overload among older adults living in LTC. In typical fashion of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial, each cluster acts as an internal control (before and after) as well as a control for the other clusters (external control). Qualitative data collected will include resident/caregiver attitudes towards deprescribing and semi-structured interviews with staff working in the long-term care homes. Discussion This study design addresses issues with seasonality and allows all clusters to participate in the intervention, which is an advantage when the intervention is related to quality improvement. This study will provide valuable information on PIM use, cost savings, and facilitators and challenges associated with medication reviews and deprescribing. This study represents an important step towards understanding and promoting tools to guide safe and rational reduction of PIM use among older adults. Trial registration NCT04762303, Registered February 21, 2021.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document