Dataset Information

Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians' evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) DESIGN: RCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis. PARTICIPANTS:Volunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians. Among the 787 individuals who accessed the website, 622 were eligible and automatically randomised into 'without overstatement' (n=307) and 'with overstatement' (n=315) groups. INTERVENTIONS:We selected five abstracts from published RCTs with at least one non-significant primary outcome and overstatement in the abstract conclusion. To construct a version without overstatement, we rewrote the conclusion sections. The methods and results sections were standardised to provide the necessary information of primary outcome information when it was missing in the original abstract. Participants were randomly assigned to read an abstract either with or without overstatements and asked to evaluate the benefit of the intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the participants' evaluation of the benefit of the intervention discussed in the abstract, on a scale from 0 to 10. A secondary outcome was the validity of the conclusion. RESULTS:There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to their evaluation of the benefit of the intervention (mean difference: 0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.42, p=0.69). Participants in the 'without' group considered the study conclusion to be more valid than those in the 'with' group (mean difference: 0.97, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36, P<0.001). CONCLUSION:The overstatements in abstract conclusions did not significantly influence the primary care physicians' evaluations of the intervention effect when necessary information about the primary outcomes was distinctly reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:UMIN000025317; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Shinohara K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5736039 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial.

Shinohara Kiyomi K Aoki Takuya T So Ryuhei R Tsujimoto Yasushi Y Suganuma Aya M AM Kise Morito M Furukawa Toshi A TA

BMJ open 20171214 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians' evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) DESIGN: RCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis.<h4>Participants</h4>Volunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians. A ...[more]

PMID: 29247102

Similar Datasets

Project description:Intimate partner violence (IPV) and its associated negative mental health consequences are significant for women in New Zealand and internationally. One of the most widely recommended interventions is safety planning. However, few women experiencing violence access specialist services for safety planning. A safety decision aid, weighing the dangers of leaving or staying in an abusive relationship, gives women the opportunity to prioritise, plan and take action to increase safety for themselves and their children. This randomised controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of an innovative, interactive web-based safety decision aid. The trial is an international collaborative concurrent replication of a USA trial (IRIS study NCT01312103), regionalised for the Aotearoa New Zealand culture and offers fully automated online trial recruitment, eligibility screening and consent.In a fully automated web-based trial (isafe) 340 abused women will be randomly assigned in equal numbers to a safety decision aid intervention or usual safety planning control website. Intervention components include: (a) safety priority setting, (b) danger assessment and (c) an individually tailored safety action plan. Self-reported outcome measures are collected at baseline and 3, 6, and 12-months post-baseline. Primary outcomes are depression (measured by Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Revised) and IPV exposure (measured by Severity Violence Against Women Scale) at 12 months post-baseline. Secondary outcomes include PTSD, psychological abuse, decisional conflict, safety behaviors and danger in the relationship.This trial will provide much-needed information on the potential relationships among safety planning, improved mental health, reduced violence as well as decreased decisional conflict related to safety in the abusive relationship. The novel web-based safety decision aid intervention may provide a cost-effective, easily accessed safety-planning resource that can be translated into clinical and community practice by multiple health disciplines and advocates. The trial will also provide information about how women in abusive relationships safely access safety information and resources through the Internet. Finally, the trial will inform other research teams on the feasibility and acceptability of fully automated recruitment, eligibility screening, consent and retention procedures.Trial registered on 03 July 2012 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000708853 .

Project description:IntroductionApproximately 35% of patients with cancer experience clinically significant distress, and unmet psychological supportive care needs are prevalent. This study describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based psychological intervention for distressed patients with cancer.Methods and analysisIn phase I, the intervention was developed on an interactive web platform and pilot tested for acceptability using a qualitative methodology with 21 patients with cancer. Phase II is an RCT underway with patients with or at risk of elevated psychological distress comparing: (1) static patient education website with (2) individualised web-delivered cognitive behavioural intervention (CancerCope). Participants were recruited through the Queensland Cancer Registry and Cancer Council Helpline and met the following inclusion criteria: (1) recently diagnosed with cancer; (2) able to read and speak English; (3) no previous history of head injury, dementia or psychiatric illness; (4) no other concurrent cancer; (5) phone and internet access; (5) scored ?4 on the Distress Thermometer. Participants are assessed at four time points: baseline/recruitment and 2, 6 and 12 months after recruitment and intervention commencement. Of the 163 participants recruited, 50% met caseness for distress. The area of highest unmet supportive care needs were psychological followed by physical and daily living needs. Primary outcomes are psychological and cancer-specific distress and unmet psychological supportive care needs. Secondary outcomes are positive adjustment, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval: PSY/70/13/HREC) and the Metro South Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/13/QPAH/601). All participants provide informed consent prior to taking part in the study. Once completed, this study will provide recommendations about the efficacy of web-based cognitive behavioural interventions to facilitate better psychosocial adjustment for people with cancer.Trial registration numberANZCTR (ACTRN12613001026718).

Project description:The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications.We conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision.A total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n?=?166; control n?=?158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n?=?94; n?=?103). Over a third (39%; n?=?127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n?=?43; n?=?50), pragmatic (n?=?20; n?=?16) and cluster (n?=?10; n?=?9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10).This study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013].

Project description:BACKGROUND: The production of high quality systematic reviews requires rigorous methods that are time-consuming and resource intensive. Citation screening is a key step in the systematic review process. An opportunity to improve the efficiency of systematic review production involves the use of non-expert groups and new technologies for citation screening. We performed a pilot study of citation screening by medical students using four screening methods and compared students' performance to experienced review authors. METHODS: The aims of this pilot randomised controlled trial were to provide preliminary data on the accuracy of title and abstract screening by medical students, and on the effect of screening modality on screening accuracy and efficiency. Medical students were randomly allocated to title and abstract screening using one of the four modalities and required to screen 650 citations from a single systematic review update. The four screening modalities were a reference management software program (EndNote), Paper, a web-based systematic review workflow platform (ReGroup) and a mobile screening application (Screen2Go). Screening sensitivity and specificity were analysed in a complete case analysis using a chi-squared test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test according to screening modality and compared to a final set of included citations selected by expert review authors. RESULTS: Sensitivity of medical students' screening decisions ranged from 46.7% to 66.7%, with students using the web-based platform performing significantly better than the paper-based group. Specificity ranged from 93.2% to 97.4% with the lowest specificity seen with the web-based platform. There was no significant difference in performance between the other three modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students are a feasible population to engage in citation screening. Future studies should investigate the effect of incentive systems, training and support and analytical methods on screening performance. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Cochrane Database CD001048.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The primary objective of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to establish the effectiveness of a novel online quality of life (QoL) intervention tailored for people with late stage (? 10 episodes) bipolar disorder (BD) compared with psychoeducation. Relative to early stage individuals, this late stage group may not benefit as much from existing psychosocial treatments. The intervention is a guided self-help, mindfulness based intervention (MBI) developed in consultation with consumers, designed specifically for web-based delivery, with email coaching support. METHODS/DESIGN:This international RCT will involve a comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two 5-week adjunctive online self-management interventions: Mindfulness for Bipolar 2.0 and an active control (Psychoeducation for Bipolar). A total of 300 participants will be recruited primarily via social media channels. Main inclusion criteria are: a diagnosis of BD (confirmed via a phone-administered structured diagnostic interview), no current mood episode, history of 10 or more mood episodes, no current psychotic features or active suicidality, under the care of a medical practitioner. Block randomisation will be used for allocation to the interventions, and participants will retain access to the program for 6 months. Evaluations will be conducted at pre- and post- treatment, and at 3- and 6- months follow-up. The primary outcome measure will be the Brief Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder Scale (Brief QoL.BD), collected immediately post-intervention at 5 weeks (T1). Secondary measures include BD-related symptoms (mania, depression, anxiety, stress), time to first relapse, functioning, sleep quality, social rhythm stability and resource use. Measurements will be collected online and via telephone assessments at baseline (T0), 5 weeks (T1), three months (T2) and six months (T3). Candidate moderators (diagnosis, anxiety or substance comorbidities, demographics and current treatments) will be investigated as will putative therapeutic mechanisms including mindfulness, emotion regulation and self-compassion. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. Acceptability and any unwanted events (including adverse treatment reactions) will be documented and explored. DISCUSSION:This definitive trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel QoL focused, mindfulness based, online guided self-help intervention for late stage BD, and investigate its putative mechanisms of therapeutic action. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03197974 . Registered 23 June 2017.

Dataset Information

Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets