Cargando…

Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a pedagogical tool to enhance the understanding of a checklist that evaluates reports of nonpharmacological trials (CLEAR NPT). DESIGN: Paired randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and systematic reviewers. INTERVENTIONS: W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fourcade, Lola, Boutron, Isabelle, Moher, David, Ronceray, Lucie, Baron, Gabriel, Ravaud, Philippe
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1865084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17479163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022
_version_ 1782133218099593216
author Fourcade, Lola
Boutron, Isabelle
Moher, David
Ronceray, Lucie
Baron, Gabriel
Ravaud, Philippe
author_facet Fourcade, Lola
Boutron, Isabelle
Moher, David
Ronceray, Lucie
Baron, Gabriel
Ravaud, Philippe
author_sort Fourcade, Lola
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a pedagogical tool to enhance the understanding of a checklist that evaluates reports of nonpharmacological trials (CLEAR NPT). DESIGN: Paired randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and systematic reviewers. INTERVENTIONS: We developed an Internet-based computer learning system (ICLS). This pedagogical tool used many examples from published randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the main coding difficulties encountered when using this checklist. Randomised participants received either a specific Web-based training with the ICLS (intervention group) or no specific training. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of correct answers compared to a criterion standard for coding a report of randomised controlled trials with the CLEAR NPT. RESULTS: Between April and June 2006, 78 participants were randomly assigned to receive training with the ICLS (39) or no training (39). Participants trained by the ICLS did not differ from the control group in performance on the CLEAR NPT. The mean paired difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval was 0.5 (−5.1 to 6.1). The rate of correct answers did not differ between the two groups regardless of the CLEAR NPT item. Combining both groups, the rate of correct answers was high or items related to allocation sequence (79.5%), description of the intervention (82.0%), blinding of patients (79.5%), and follow-up schedule (83.3%). The rate of correct answers was low for items related to allocation concealment (46.1%), co-interventions (30.3%), blinding of outcome assessors (53.8%), specific measures to avoid ascertainment bias (28.6%), and intention-to-treat analysis (60.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although we showed no difference in effect between the intervention and control groups, our results highlight the gap in knowledge and urgency for education on important aspects of trial conduct.
format Text
id pubmed-1865084
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-18650842007-05-04 Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial Fourcade, Lola Boutron, Isabelle Moher, David Ronceray, Lucie Baron, Gabriel Ravaud, Philippe PLoS Clin Trials Research Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a pedagogical tool to enhance the understanding of a checklist that evaluates reports of nonpharmacological trials (CLEAR NPT). DESIGN: Paired randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and systematic reviewers. INTERVENTIONS: We developed an Internet-based computer learning system (ICLS). This pedagogical tool used many examples from published randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the main coding difficulties encountered when using this checklist. Randomised participants received either a specific Web-based training with the ICLS (intervention group) or no specific training. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of correct answers compared to a criterion standard for coding a report of randomised controlled trials with the CLEAR NPT. RESULTS: Between April and June 2006, 78 participants were randomly assigned to receive training with the ICLS (39) or no training (39). Participants trained by the ICLS did not differ from the control group in performance on the CLEAR NPT. The mean paired difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval was 0.5 (−5.1 to 6.1). The rate of correct answers did not differ between the two groups regardless of the CLEAR NPT item. Combining both groups, the rate of correct answers was high or items related to allocation sequence (79.5%), description of the intervention (82.0%), blinding of patients (79.5%), and follow-up schedule (83.3%). The rate of correct answers was low for items related to allocation concealment (46.1%), co-interventions (30.3%), blinding of outcome assessors (53.8%), specific measures to avoid ascertainment bias (28.6%), and intention-to-treat analysis (60.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although we showed no difference in effect between the intervention and control groups, our results highlight the gap in knowledge and urgency for education on important aspects of trial conduct. Public Library of Science 2007-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC1865084/ /pubmed/17479163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022 Text en © 2007 Fourcade et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Fourcade, Lola
Boutron, Isabelle
Moher, David
Ronceray, Lucie
Baron, Gabriel
Ravaud, Philippe
Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial
title Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial
title_full Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial
title_short Development and Evaluation of a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Understanding of a Quality Checklist: A Randomised Controlled Trial
title_sort development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1865084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17479163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022
work_keys_str_mv AT fourcadelola developmentandevaluationofapedagogicaltooltoimproveunderstandingofaqualitychecklistarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT boutronisabelle developmentandevaluationofapedagogicaltooltoimproveunderstandingofaqualitychecklistarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT moherdavid developmentandevaluationofapedagogicaltooltoimproveunderstandingofaqualitychecklistarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT ronceraylucie developmentandevaluationofapedagogicaltooltoimproveunderstandingofaqualitychecklistarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT barongabriel developmentandevaluationofapedagogicaltooltoimproveunderstandingofaqualitychecklistarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT ravaudphilippe developmentandevaluationofapedagogicaltooltoimproveunderstandingofaqualitychecklistarandomisedcontrolledtrial