Impact of a Limitation Section on the Meta-analysis Results' Interpretation

NCT ID: NCT01848600

Last Updated: 2014-04-21

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

WITHDRAWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-04-30

Study Completion Date

2013-06-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Objective: The investigators aim to evaluate the impact of a " limitations " section in systematic review's abstract on results' interpretation by readers.

Design: Randomized ratio 1:1 controlled trial with two parallel arms. Participants will be invited to participate in an online survey.

Participants: Eligible participants are corresponding authors of randomized controlled trial published between 2010 and 2012 and referenced in pubmed Intervention: The investigators will evaluate the impact of the presence of a " limitations " section in abstract of systematic review with meta-analysis. The investigators selected abstracts of meta-analysis published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine between 2006 and 2011.

Selected abstract will be standardised and the treatment's name hidden. The two groups of abstract will be presented as follow: 1) abstract with " limitations " section and 2) abstract without " limitations " section: the " limitations " section of the original abstract will be deleted.

Selected participants are invited by e-mail to answer the survey. After reading one abstract from his group a randomization they are invited two answer 5 questions about their interpretation of the meta-analysis's results.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

OBJECTIVE The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of a " limitations " section in systematic review's abstract on results' interpretation by readers.

STUDY DESIGN The study is a randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms. The study follows the CONSORT 2010 statements Participant will be invited to participate in an on-line survey with a secured web site. Participants, after a characteristic description will be randomized in one of the two arms: 1) abstract with a " limitations " section 2) abstract without a " limitations " section.

ELIGIBILITY Eligible participants are corresponding authors of randomized trials published between 2010 and 2012 and referenced in pubmed core set journal

INTERVENTION We will evaluate the impact of the presence of a " limitations " section in abstract of systematic review with meta-analysis.

SELECTION OF ABSTRACTS We will retrieve all systematic review with meta-analysis published in the journals Annals of Internal Medicine between the years 2006 and 2012, about health care intervention with a conclusion in favor the experimental treatment or intervention. We exclude updates, diagnostical, genetical, epidemiological or economical evaluation and multiple or indirect comparisons.

MODIFICATION OF ABSTRACTS All selected abstracts will be standardised. Treatment name will be replaced with "experimental treatment A", control treatment will be replaced by "control treatment B" if necessary in the title and in the abstract.

The two groups of abstract will be presented as follow:

1. Abstract with " limitations " section
2. Abstract without " limitations " section: the " limitations " section of the original abstract will be deleted.

OUTCOMES PRIMARY OUTCOME The primary outcome will be, the readers' recommendation of the experimental treatment A

SECONDARY OUTCOMES Secondary outcomes will evaluate the interpretation of the results of the meta-analysis. The readers will answers the following questions, with the choice of answers based on a 10-point Likert scale

1. How would you rate the quality of the systematic review?
2. How confident are you in the results of this systematic review?
3. Do you consider that the experimental treatment A is a proven effective treatment?
4. How confident are you in the validity of the conclusion that the authors draw? NUMBER OF PARTICIPANT A power analysis was conducted to estimate the number of subject (participants) needed to achieve a power of 0.9 and an alpha value of 0.05 to discern a different of effect size of 0.4 between the two versions of abstract. This resulted in an estimate to the need of recruit a minimum of 133 participants in each arm, either a total of 266 participants STATISTICAL ANALYSIS We will analyze data with R project software, in intention to treat. Data for quantitative variables are expressed with medians and interquartile (IQR) ranges. Qualitative variables are expressed with frequencies and percentages and missing data Primary analysis will compare means of the primary outcome between the 2 groups with a Student t test.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Systematic Review With Metaanalysis

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

abstract without limitation section

the experimental arm is abstract without the limitation section

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

interpretation of the abstract

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

the intervention consist to interpret the results of the meta-analysis after reading the abstract.

abstract with limitation section

the control arm is abstract with the original limitation section

Group Type OTHER

interpretation of the abstract

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

the intervention consist to interpret the results of the meta-analysis after reading the abstract.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

interpretation of the abstract

the intervention consist to interpret the results of the meta-analysis after reading the abstract.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* abstract of meta-analysis published in the journal "Annals of Internal Medicine" between 2006 and 2012, about health care intervention with a conclusion in favour the experimental treatment

Exclusion Criteria

* updates of previously published systematic reviews,
* systematic review if diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, epidemiologic, economics evaluation
* indirect comparison meta-analysis.
Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Amélie YAVCHITZ, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Institut National de la Santé Et de la Recherche Médicale, France

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

RAV003

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.