Cargando…
Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial
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 perf...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26370288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y |
_version_ | 1782390148981325824 |
---|---|
author | Barnes, Caroline Boutron, Isabelle Giraudeau, Bruno Porcher, Raphael Altman, Douglas G Ravaud, Philippe |
author_facet | Barnes, Caroline Boutron, Isabelle Giraudeau, Bruno Porcher, Raphael Altman, Douglas G Ravaud, Philippe |
author_sort | Barnes, Caroline |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 (http://clinicaltrials.govNCT02127567, registration date first received April 29, 2014) ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4570037 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45700372015-09-16 Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial Barnes, Caroline Boutron, Isabelle Giraudeau, Bruno Porcher, Raphael Altman, Douglas G Ravaud, Philippe BMC Med Research Article 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 (http://clinicaltrials.govNCT02127567, registration date first received April 29, 2014) ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4570037/ /pubmed/26370288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y Text en © Barnes et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Barnes, Caroline Boutron, Isabelle Giraudeau, Bruno Porcher, Raphael Altman, Douglas G Ravaud, Philippe Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial |
title | Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the cobweb (consort-based web tool) randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26370288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barnescaroline impactofanonlinewritingaidtoolforwritingarandomizedtrialreportthecobwebconsortbasedwebtoolrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT boutronisabelle impactofanonlinewritingaidtoolforwritingarandomizedtrialreportthecobwebconsortbasedwebtoolrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT giraudeaubruno impactofanonlinewritingaidtoolforwritingarandomizedtrialreportthecobwebconsortbasedwebtoolrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT porcherraphael impactofanonlinewritingaidtoolforwritingarandomizedtrialreportthecobwebconsortbasedwebtoolrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT altmandouglasg impactofanonlinewritingaidtoolforwritingarandomizedtrialreportthecobwebconsortbasedwebtoolrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT ravaudphilippe impactofanonlinewritingaidtoolforwritingarandomizedtrialreportthecobwebconsortbasedwebtoolrandomizedcontrolledtrial |