Cargando…

How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Most studies conducted at general practices investigate complex interventions and increasingly use cluster-randomised controlled trail (c-RCT) designs to do so. Our primary objective is to evaluate how frequently complex interventions are shown to be more, equally or less effective tha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siebenhofer, Andrea, Erckenbrecht, Stefanie, Pregartner, Gudrun, Berghold, Andrea, Muth, Christiane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26892789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009414
_version_ 1782417063272251392
author Siebenhofer, Andrea
Erckenbrecht, Stefanie
Pregartner, Gudrun
Berghold, Andrea
Muth, Christiane
author_facet Siebenhofer, Andrea
Erckenbrecht, Stefanie
Pregartner, Gudrun
Berghold, Andrea
Muth, Christiane
author_sort Siebenhofer, Andrea
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Most studies conducted at general practices investigate complex interventions and increasingly use cluster-randomised controlled trail (c-RCT) designs to do so. Our primary objective is to evaluate how frequently complex interventions are shown to be more, equally or less effective than routine care in c-RCTs with a superior design. The secondary aim is to discover whether the quality of a c-RCT determines the likelihood of the complex intervention being effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All c-RCTs of any design that have a patient-relevant primary outcome and with a duration of at least 1 year will be included. The search will be performed in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)). The screening process, data collection, quality assessment and statistical data analyses (if suitably similar and of adequate quality) will be performed in accordance with requirements of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A feasibility project was carried out that was restricted to a search in MEDLINE and the CCTR for c-RCTs published in 1 of the 8 journals that are most relevant to general practice. The process from trial selection to data collection, assessment and results presentation was piloted. Of the 512 abstracts identified during the feasibility search, 21 studies examined complex interventions in a general practice setting. Extrapolating the preliminary search to include all relevant c-RCTs in three databases, about 5000 abstracts and 150 primary studies are expected to be identified in the main study. 14 studies included in the feasibility project (67%) did not show a positive effect on a primary patient-relevant end point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not being sought for this review. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals that frequently publish articles on the results of c-RCTs and through presentations at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD201400923.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4762123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47621232016-02-25 How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review Siebenhofer, Andrea Erckenbrecht, Stefanie Pregartner, Gudrun Berghold, Andrea Muth, Christiane BMJ Open General practice / Family practice INTRODUCTION: Most studies conducted at general practices investigate complex interventions and increasingly use cluster-randomised controlled trail (c-RCT) designs to do so. Our primary objective is to evaluate how frequently complex interventions are shown to be more, equally or less effective than routine care in c-RCTs with a superior design. The secondary aim is to discover whether the quality of a c-RCT determines the likelihood of the complex intervention being effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All c-RCTs of any design that have a patient-relevant primary outcome and with a duration of at least 1 year will be included. The search will be performed in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)). The screening process, data collection, quality assessment and statistical data analyses (if suitably similar and of adequate quality) will be performed in accordance with requirements of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A feasibility project was carried out that was restricted to a search in MEDLINE and the CCTR for c-RCTs published in 1 of the 8 journals that are most relevant to general practice. The process from trial selection to data collection, assessment and results presentation was piloted. Of the 512 abstracts identified during the feasibility search, 21 studies examined complex interventions in a general practice setting. Extrapolating the preliminary search to include all relevant c-RCTs in three databases, about 5000 abstracts and 150 primary studies are expected to be identified in the main study. 14 studies included in the feasibility project (67%) did not show a positive effect on a primary patient-relevant end point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not being sought for this review. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals that frequently publish articles on the results of c-RCTs and through presentations at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD201400923. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4762123/ /pubmed/26892789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009414 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Siebenhofer, Andrea
Erckenbrecht, Stefanie
Pregartner, Gudrun
Berghold, Andrea
Muth, Christiane
How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
title How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
title_full How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
title_fullStr How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
title_short How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
title_sort how often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26892789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009414
work_keys_str_mv AT siebenhoferandrea howoftenareinterventionsinclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofcomplexinterventionsingeneralpracticeseffectiveandreasonsforpotentialshortcomingsprotocolandresultsofafeasibilityprojectforasystematicreview
AT erckenbrechtstefanie howoftenareinterventionsinclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofcomplexinterventionsingeneralpracticeseffectiveandreasonsforpotentialshortcomingsprotocolandresultsofafeasibilityprojectforasystematicreview
AT pregartnergudrun howoftenareinterventionsinclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofcomplexinterventionsingeneralpracticeseffectiveandreasonsforpotentialshortcomingsprotocolandresultsofafeasibilityprojectforasystematicreview
AT bergholdandrea howoftenareinterventionsinclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofcomplexinterventionsingeneralpracticeseffectiveandreasonsforpotentialshortcomingsprotocolandresultsofafeasibilityprojectforasystematicreview
AT muthchristiane howoftenareinterventionsinclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofcomplexinterventionsingeneralpracticeseffectiveandreasonsforpotentialshortcomingsprotocolandresultsofafeasibilityprojectforasystematicreview