Cargando…
Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians’ evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) DESIGN: RCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5736039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29247102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018355 |
_version_ | 1783287316526137344 |
---|---|
author | Shinohara, Kiyomi Aoki, Takuya So, Ryuhei Tsujimoto, Yasushi Suganuma, Aya M Kise, Morito Furukawa, Toshi A |
author_facet | Shinohara, Kiyomi Aoki, Takuya So, Ryuhei Tsujimoto, Yasushi Suganuma, Aya M Kise, Morito Furukawa, Toshi A |
author_sort | Shinohara, Kiyomi |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians’ evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) DESIGN: RCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians. Among the 787 individuals who accessed the website, 622 were eligible and automatically randomised into ‘without overstatement’ (n=307) and ‘with overstatement’ (n=315) groups. INTERVENTIONS: We selected five abstracts from published RCTs with at least one non-significant primary outcome and overstatement in the abstract conclusion. To construct a version without overstatement, we rewrote the conclusion sections. The methods and results sections were standardised to provide the necessary information of primary outcome information when it was missing in the original abstract. Participants were randomly assigned to read an abstract either with or without overstatements and asked to evaluate the benefit of the intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the participants’ evaluation of the benefit of the intervention discussed in the abstract, on a scale from 0 to 10. A secondary outcome was the validity of the conclusion. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to their evaluation of the benefit of the intervention (mean difference: 0.07, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.42, p=0.69). Participants in the ‘without’ group considered the study conclusion to be more valid than those in the ‘with’ group (mean difference: 0.97, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The overstatements in abstract conclusions did not significantly influence the primary care physicians’ evaluations of the intervention effect when necessary information about the primary outcomes was distinctly reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000025317; Pre-results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5736039 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57360392017-12-20 Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial Shinohara, Kiyomi Aoki, Takuya So, Ryuhei Tsujimoto, Yasushi Suganuma, Aya M Kise, Morito Furukawa, Toshi A BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians’ evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) DESIGN: RCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians. Among the 787 individuals who accessed the website, 622 were eligible and automatically randomised into ‘without overstatement’ (n=307) and ‘with overstatement’ (n=315) groups. INTERVENTIONS: We selected five abstracts from published RCTs with at least one non-significant primary outcome and overstatement in the abstract conclusion. To construct a version without overstatement, we rewrote the conclusion sections. The methods and results sections were standardised to provide the necessary information of primary outcome information when it was missing in the original abstract. Participants were randomly assigned to read an abstract either with or without overstatements and asked to evaluate the benefit of the intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the participants’ evaluation of the benefit of the intervention discussed in the abstract, on a scale from 0 to 10. A secondary outcome was the validity of the conclusion. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to their evaluation of the benefit of the intervention (mean difference: 0.07, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.42, p=0.69). Participants in the ‘without’ group considered the study conclusion to be more valid than those in the ‘with’ group (mean difference: 0.97, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The overstatements in abstract conclusions did not significantly influence the primary care physicians’ evaluations of the intervention effect when necessary information about the primary outcomes was distinctly reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000025317; Pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5736039/ /pubmed/29247102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018355 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. 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 | Evidence Based Practice Shinohara, Kiyomi Aoki, Takuya So, Ryuhei Tsujimoto, Yasushi Suganuma, Aya M Kise, Morito Furukawa, Toshi A Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial |
title | Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial |
topic | Evidence Based Practice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5736039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29247102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018355 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shinoharakiyomi influenceofoverstatedabstractconclusionsoncliniciansawebbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT aokitakuya influenceofoverstatedabstractconclusionsoncliniciansawebbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT soryuhei influenceofoverstatedabstractconclusionsoncliniciansawebbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT tsujimotoyasushi influenceofoverstatedabstractconclusionsoncliniciansawebbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT suganumaayam influenceofoverstatedabstractconclusionsoncliniciansawebbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT kisemorito influenceofoverstatedabstractconclusionsoncliniciansawebbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT furukawatoshia influenceofoverstatedabstractconclusionsoncliniciansawebbasedrandomisedcontrolledtrial |