Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial

Caroline Barnes, Isabelle Boutron, Bruno Giraudeau, Raphael Porcher, Douglas G Altman, Philippe Ravaud, Caroline Barnes, Isabelle Boutron, Bruno Giraudeau, Raphael Porcher, Douglas G Altman, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract

Background: Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: We performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT.

Results: Forty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes.

Conclusion: Use of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ( https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02127567" title="See in ClinicalTrials.gov">NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schema of the study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Example of the experimental writing tool
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Flow diagram of participants and domain randomization

References

    1. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267–76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X.
    1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5661.
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA. 2012;308:2594–604. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.87802.
    1. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O’Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:781–8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009.
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295–309. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008.
    1. CONSORT Endorsers Journals and Organizations. . (Accessed 31/8/2015).
    1. Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal ‘Instructions to Authors’. Trials. 2008;9:20. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-9-20.
    1. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010;340:c723. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c723.
    1. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47.
    1. Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials – update and extension. Trials. 2012;13:214. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-214.
    1. Ntala C, Birmpili P, Worth A, Anderson NH, Sheikh A. The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review. Prim Care Respir J. 2013;22:417–24. doi: 10.4104/pcrj.2013.00089.
    1. Sinha S, Ashby E, Jayaram R, Grocott MP. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:565–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.07.019.
    1. Clark L, Schmidt U, Tharmanathan P, Adamson J, Hewitt C, Torgerson D. Poor reporting quality of key Randomization and Allocation Concealment details is still prevalent among published RCTs in 2011: a review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19:703–7. doi: 10.1111/jep.12031.
    1. To MJ, Jones J, Emara M, Jadad AR. Are reports of randomized controlled trials improving over time? A systematic review of 284 articles published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals. PLoS One. 2013;8:e84779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084779.
    1. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g4145.
    1. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev. 2012;1:60.
    1. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, Kim E. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials. 2012;13:77. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-77.
    1. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e4178. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4178.
    1. Yurdakul S, Mustafa BN, Fresko I, Seyahi E, Yazici H. Brief report: inadequate description and discussion of enrolled patient characteristics and potential inter-study site differences in reports of randomized controlled trials: a systematic survey in six rheumatology journals. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66:1395–9. doi: 10.1002/art.38349.
    1. Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J, Bland JM. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ. 2005;330:1057–8. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;347:f3755. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3755.
    1. Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF. Improving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyond. Stat Med. 2012;31:2985–97. doi: 10.1002/sim.5402.
    1. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One. 2012;7:e35621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621.
    1. Shamseer L, Stevens A, Skidmore B, Turner L, Altman DG, Hirst A, et al. Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2012;1:24.
    1. Boutron I, Ravaud P. Improving the reporting of clinical research. Br J Surg. 2009;96:449–50. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6611.
    1. Writing aid tool. . (Accessed 31/8/2015)
    1. Giraudeau B, Ravaud P, Donner A. Sample size calculation for cluster randomized cross-over trials. Stat Med. 2008;27:5578–85. doi: 10.1002/sim.3383.
    1. Turner RM, White IR, Croudace T. Analysis of cluster randomized cross-over trial data: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 2007;26:274–89. doi: 10.1002/sim.2537.
    1. Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다