当前位置:
X-MOL 学术
›
Int. J. Epidemiol.
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your
feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Intervention effect estimates in cluster randomized versus individually randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study
International Journal of Epidemiology ( IF 6.4 ) Pub Date : 2018-11-09 , DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy229 Clémence Leyrat 1 , Agnès Caille 2, 3 , Sandra Eldridge 4 , Sally Kerry 4 , Agnès Dechartres 5 , Bruno Giraudeau 2, 3
International Journal of Epidemiology ( IF 6.4 ) Pub Date : 2018-11-09 , DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy229 Clémence Leyrat 1 , Agnès Caille 2, 3 , Sandra Eldridge 4 , Sally Kerry 4 , Agnès Dechartres 5 , Bruno Giraudeau 2, 3
Affiliation
Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) and individually randomized trials (IRTs) are often pooled together in meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized trials. However, the potential systematic differences in intervention effect estimates between these two trial types has never been investigated. Therefore, we conducted a meta-epidemiological study comparing intervention effect estimates between CRTs and IRTs.
中文翻译:
整群随机试验与单独随机试验的干预效果估计:一项荟萃流行病学研究
整群随机试验 (CRT) 和单独随机试验 (IRT) 通常在随机试验的荟萃分析 (MA) 中合并在一起。然而,这两种试验类型之间干预效果估计的潜在系统差异从未被调查过。因此,我们进行了一项荟萃流行病学研究,比较 CRT 和 IRT 的干预效果估计。
更新日期:2018-11-09
中文翻译:
整群随机试验与单独随机试验的干预效果估计:一项荟萃流行病学研究
整群随机试验 (CRT) 和单独随机试验 (IRT) 通常在随机试验的荟萃分析 (MA) 中合并在一起。然而,这两种试验类型之间干预效果估计的潜在系统差异从未被调查过。因此,我们进行了一项荟萃流行病学研究,比较 CRT 和 IRT 的干预效果估计。