MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152765990 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30541-6

The role and challenges of cluster randomised trials for global health

2021· review· en· W3152765990 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Dron, Monica Taljaard, Yin Bun Cheung, Rebecca F. Grais, Nathan Ford, Kristian Thorlund, Fyezah Jehan, Etheldreda Nakimuli‐Mpungu, Denis Xavier, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Jay Park, Edward J. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalImpactMcMaster University
FundersMQ: Transforming Mental HealthBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPopularityIntervention (counseling)Cluster (spacecraft)Low and middle income countriesCluster randomised controlled trialGlobal healthClinical trialPopulationPopulation healthMedicineAlternative medicineRandomized controlled trialPsychologyEnvironmental healthPublic healthDeveloping countryEconomic growthComputer scienceNursingEconomicsSocial psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluating whether an intervention works when trialled in groups of individuals can pose complex challenges for clinical research. Cluster randomised controlled trials involve the random allocation of groups or clusters of individuals to receive an intervention, and they are commonly used in global health research. In this paper, we describe the potential reasons for the increasing popularity of cluster trials in low-income and middle-income countries. We also draw on key areas of global health research for an assessment of common trial planning practices, and we address their methodological shortcomings and pitfalls. Lastly, we discuss alternative approaches for population-level intervention trials that could be useful for research undertaken in low-income and middle-income countries for situations in which the use of cluster randomisation might not be appropriate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207