Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 24, 2026
A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Cluster Versus Individual Randomization in Prehospital, Emergency and Critical Care Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological
Simon Lønstrup1,2, Per Lindhardt Petersen3, Niels Henrik Bruun4
1Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Objectives:
Cluster-randomized clinical trials (cRCTs) are pooled with individually randomized clinical trials (iRCTs) in meta-analyses. However, cRCTs are associated with methodological characteristics potentially inducing systematic differences compared with iRCTs. In acute settings, trial inclusion is time-sensitive, exacerbating inclusion-based biases. We conducted a meta-epidemiological study to assess deviations in effect estimates between cRCTs and iRCTs in these settings.
Data Sources:
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase.
Data Selection:
We screened and identified all meta-analyses in prehospital, emergency, or critical care within the last decade that included at least one cRCT and one iRCT.
Data Extraction:
Data were extracted in duplicate from the meta-analyses. If overlapping trials were identified, results were pooled. The primary outcome was mortality; the secondary outcome comprised length-of-stay- or days-alive-type outcomes.
Data Synthesis:
Using absolute ln(odds ratio [OR]) for mortality and absolute Hedges' g for the secondary outcome, mean differences (MDs) in effect estimates between cRCTs and iRCTs were analyzed using mixed regression models, presented with 95% CIs. We identified 94 eligible meta-analyses; 44.7% reported on randomization type (cRCT or iRCT). We included 65 meta-analyses in quantitative analyses, encompassing 212 randomized clinical trials (39 cRCTs and 173 iRCTs) and 315,276 patients. No statistically significant difference in absolute ln(OR) for mortality between cRCTs and iRCTs was found (MD, -0.110; 95% CI, -0.093 to 0.313). For length-of-stay- or days-alive-type outcomes, a significant difference in absolute Hedges' g was found (MD, -0.202; 95% CI, -0.392 to -0.012).
Conclusions:
A systematic difference between cRCTs and iRCTs in length-of-stay- or days-alive-type outcomes, but not mortality, was identified, with cRCTs reporting smaller effect size magnitudes than iRCTs. With under half of identified meta-analyses reporting on randomization modality, these results highlight the need for improved transparency and statistical consideration of randomization type in future meta-analyses in prehospital, emergency, and critical care.
Related Concept Videos
01:13Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
01:12Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:20Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.