More articles from Volume 46, Issue 3, 2017
Randomization techniques in protocols for cluster randomized trials
Systematic review of factor validity of psychiatric scales in longitudinal studies
Comparison of clinical, biochemical and morphological parameters in patients with chronic hepatitis B
Impact of ocular comorbidities on visual function and quality of life in cataract and pseudophakic patients
Effects of different doses of zinc gluconate on antioxidative activity of metformin and glibenclamide on experimentally induced diabetes in rabbits
Citations
0
Randomization techniques in protocols for cluster randomized trials
Abstract
Introduction: Planning cluster randomized studies requires special attention due to their specific design. To achieve balance on a cluster level as well as on individual level, it is necessary to apply randomization techniques which involve restricted randomization. Objective: Determine randomization techniques as well as their frequency in protocols for cluster randomized trials. Materials and method: Searching the MEDLINE bibliographic database, there were 1020 bibliographic units, the analysis included only the protocols for cluster randomized trials, which was a total of 169 trials. Data on randomization techniques, units of randomization and publication years of protocols were extracted. Results: The randomization technique with most frequency was stratification (35.9%). After stratification the most frequent was simple randomization (13.5%), followed by a combination of block and stratification (10%), block randomization (9.4%) and matching (9.4%). The most frequent units of randomization were health facilities (52%). The number of published protocols statistically increases during time (p<0.01). Conclusion: The most frequent randomization technique used by researchers is restricted randomization
Keywords
References
Citation
Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Article metrics
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.