Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial

Laure Perrier, Nav Persaud, Kevin E Thorpe, Sharon E Straus, Laure Perrier, Nav Persaud, Kevin E Thorpe, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

Background: Evidence suggests that systematic reviews are used infrequently by physicians in clinical decision-making. One proposed solution is to create filtered resources so that information is validated and refined in order to be read quickly. Two shortened systematic review formats were developed to enhance their use in clinical decision-making.

Methods: To prepare for a full-scale trial, we conducted a pilot study to test methods and procedures in order to refine the processes. A recruitment email was sent to physicians practicing full- or part-time in family medicine or general internal medicine. The pilot study took place in an online environment and eligible physicians were randomized to one of the systematic review formats (shortened or full-length) and instructed to read the document. Participants were asked to provide the clinical bottom line and apply the information presented to a clinical scenario. Participants' answers were evaluated independently by two investigators against "gold standard" answers prepared by an expert panel.

Results: Fifty-six clinicians completed the pilot study within a 2-month period with a response rate of 4.3 %. Agreement between investigators in assessing participants' answers was determined by calculating a kappa statistic. Two questions were assessed separately, and a kappa statistic was calculated at 1.00 (100 % agreement) for each.

Conclusions: Agreement between investigators in assessing participants' answers is satisfactory. Although recruitment for the pilot study was completed in a reasonable time-frame, response rates were low and will require large numbers of contacts. The results indicate that conducting a full-scale trial is feasible.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02414360 .

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Scheme for the pilot study

References

    1. Cochrane Collaboration. What are Cochrane reviews? Available at: . Accessed July 4, 2015.
    1. De Vito C, Nobile CG, Furnari G, Pavia M, De Giusti M, Angelillo IF, et al. Physicians’ knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Public Health. 2009;19(3):297–302. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn134.
    1. Laupacis A, Straus S. Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):273–4. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00180.
    1. Andrews JE, Pearce KA, Ireson C, Love MM. Information-seeking behaviors of practitioners in a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(2):206–12.
    1. Coumou HC, Meijman FJ. How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:55–60.
    1. D’Alessandro DM, Kreiter CD, Peterson MW. An evaluation of information seeking behaviors of general pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2004;113:64–9. doi: 10.1542/peds.113.1.64.
    1. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Chambliss ML, Vinson DC, Stevermer JJ, et al. Obstacles to answering doctors’ questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. 2002;324(7339):710.
    1. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME. Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(2):217–24.
    1. Fozi K, Teng CL, Krishnan R, Shajahan Y. A study of clinical questions in primary care. Med J Malaysia. 2000;55(4):486–92.
    1. Grandage KK, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. When less is more: a practical approach to searching for evidence-based answers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:298–304.
    1. Jones TH, Hanney S, Buxton MJ. The role of the national general medical journal: surveys of which journals UK clinicians read to inform their clinical practice. Med Clin (Barc) 2008;131(5 Suppl):30–5. doi: 10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76404-2.
    1. Prorok JC, Iserman EC, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. The quality, breadth, and timeliness of content updating vary substantially for 10 online medical texts: an analytic survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:1289–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.003.
    1. Perrier L, Mrklas K, Shepperd S, Dobbins M, McKibbon KA, Straus SE. Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews in clinical decision-making: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(4):419–26. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1506-7.
    1. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):620–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014.
    1. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful summary of findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):607–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013.
    1. Perrier L, Persaud N, Ko A, Kastner M, Grimshaw J, McKibbon KA, et al. Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians. Implement Sci. 2013;8:68. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-68.
    1. Perrier L, Kealey MR, Straus SE. An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(e2):e341–6. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002660.
    1. Perrier L, Kealey MR, Straus SE. A usability study of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e005919. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005919.
    1. Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios LP, et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-1.
    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for the design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
    1. Orwin RG. Evaluating coding decisions. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York (NY): Russell Sage; 1994.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials): The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001;91:437–42. doi: 10.7547/87507315-91-8-437.
    1. Health Information Research Unit. McMaster PLUS. Available at: . Accessed July 4, 2015.
    1. Scott’s Canadian Medical Directory. Toronto, Canada: Business Information Group. 2015. Available at: .
    1. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: . Accessed July 4, 2015.
    1. Cocks K, Torgenson DJ. Sample size calculations for pilot randomized trials: a confidence interval approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:197–201. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.002.
    1. McDonald JW, Mahon J, Zarnke K, Feagan B, Simms L, Tucker W. A randomized survey of the preference of gastroenterologists for a Cochrane review versus a traditional narrative review. Can J Gastroenterol. 2002;16(1):17–21.
    1. VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30(4):303–21. doi: 10.1177/0163278707307899.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe