Cargando…

Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: To allow an accurate evaluation of abstracts of systematic reviews, the PRISMA Statement recommends that the limitations of the evidence (e.g., risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision) should be described in the abstract. We aimed to evaluate the impact of adding such...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yavchitz, Amélie, Ravaud, Philippe, Hopewell, Sally, Baron, Gabriel, Boutron, Isabelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25420433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-123
_version_ 1782346669630685184
author Yavchitz, Amélie
Ravaud, Philippe
Hopewell, Sally
Baron, Gabriel
Boutron, Isabelle
author_facet Yavchitz, Amélie
Ravaud, Philippe
Hopewell, Sally
Baron, Gabriel
Boutron, Isabelle
author_sort Yavchitz, Amélie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To allow an accurate evaluation of abstracts of systematic reviews, the PRISMA Statement recommends that the limitations of the evidence (e.g., risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision) should be described in the abstract. We aimed to evaluate the impact of adding such limitations sections on reader’s interpretation. METHOD: We performed a two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) using a sample of 30 abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating the effects of healthcare intervention with conclusions favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental treatments. Two formats of these abstracts were derived: one reported without and one with a standardized limitations section written according to the PRISMA statement for abstracts. The primary outcome was readers’ confidence in the results of the systematic review as stated in the abstract assessed by a Likert scale from 0, not at all confident, to 10, very confident. In total, 300 participants (corresponding authors of RCT reports indexed in PubMed) were randomized by a web-based randomization procedure to interpret one abstract with a limitations section (n = 150) or without a limitations section (n = 150). Participants were blinded to the study hypothesis. RESULTS: Adding a limitations section did not modify readers’ interpretation of findings in terms of confidence in the results (mean difference [95% confidence interval] 0.19 [−0.37–0.74], p = 0.50), confidence in the validity of the conclusions (0.07 [−0.49–0.62], p = 0.80), or benefit of the experimental intervention (0.12 [−0.42–0.44], p = 0.65). This study is limited because the participants were expert-readers and are not representative of all systematic review readers. CONCLUSION: Adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews did not affect readers’ interpretation of the abstract results. Other studies are needed to confirm the results and explore the impact of a limitations section on a less expert panel of participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT01848782). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-123) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4247631
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42476312014-11-30 Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial Yavchitz, Amélie Ravaud, Philippe Hopewell, Sally Baron, Gabriel Boutron, Isabelle BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: To allow an accurate evaluation of abstracts of systematic reviews, the PRISMA Statement recommends that the limitations of the evidence (e.g., risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision) should be described in the abstract. We aimed to evaluate the impact of adding such limitations sections on reader’s interpretation. METHOD: We performed a two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) using a sample of 30 abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating the effects of healthcare intervention with conclusions favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental treatments. Two formats of these abstracts were derived: one reported without and one with a standardized limitations section written according to the PRISMA statement for abstracts. The primary outcome was readers’ confidence in the results of the systematic review as stated in the abstract assessed by a Likert scale from 0, not at all confident, to 10, very confident. In total, 300 participants (corresponding authors of RCT reports indexed in PubMed) were randomized by a web-based randomization procedure to interpret one abstract with a limitations section (n = 150) or without a limitations section (n = 150). Participants were blinded to the study hypothesis. RESULTS: Adding a limitations section did not modify readers’ interpretation of findings in terms of confidence in the results (mean difference [95% confidence interval] 0.19 [−0.37–0.74], p = 0.50), confidence in the validity of the conclusions (0.07 [−0.49–0.62], p = 0.80), or benefit of the experimental intervention (0.12 [−0.42–0.44], p = 0.65). This study is limited because the participants were expert-readers and are not representative of all systematic review readers. CONCLUSION: Adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews did not affect readers’ interpretation of the abstract results. Other studies are needed to confirm the results and explore the impact of a limitations section on a less expert panel of participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT01848782). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-123) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4247631/ /pubmed/25420433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-123 Text en © Yavchitz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yavchitz, Amélie
Ravaud, Philippe
Hopewell, Sally
Baron, Gabriel
Boutron, Isabelle
Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
title Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
title_short Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25420433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-123
work_keys_str_mv AT yavchitzamelie impactofaddingalimitationssectiontoabstractsofsystematicreviewsonreadersinterpretationarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ravaudphilippe impactofaddingalimitationssectiontoabstractsofsystematicreviewsonreadersinterpretationarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hopewellsally impactofaddingalimitationssectiontoabstractsofsystematicreviewsonreadersinterpretationarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT barongabriel impactofaddingalimitationssectiontoabstractsofsystematicreviewsonreadersinterpretationarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT boutronisabelle impactofaddingalimitationssectiontoabstractsofsystematicreviewsonreadersinterpretationarandomizedcontrolledtrial