Cargando…
Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial
OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews often rely on the acquisition of unpublished analyses or data. We carried out a nested randomised trial comparing two different approaches for contacting authors to request additional data for a systematic review. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were authors of published rep...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6359874/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30705243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025273 |
_version_ | 1783392376988893184 |
---|---|
author | Godolphin, Peter J Bath, Philip M Montgomery, Alan A |
author_facet | Godolphin, Peter J Bath, Philip M Montgomery, Alan A |
author_sort | Godolphin, Peter J |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews often rely on the acquisition of unpublished analyses or data. We carried out a nested randomised trial comparing two different approaches for contacting authors to request additional data for a systematic review. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were authors of published reports of prevention or treatment trials in stroke in which there was central adjudication of events. A primary and secondary research active author were selected as contacts for each trial. INTERVENTIONS: Authors were randomised to be sent either a short email with a protocol of the systematic review attached (‘Short’) or a longer email that contained detailed information and without the protocol attached (‘Long’). A maximum of two emails were sent to each author to obtain a response. The unit of analysis was trial, accounting for clustering by author. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was whether a response was received from authors. Secondary outcomes included time to response, number of reminders needed before a response was received and whether authors agreed to collaborate. RESULTS: 88 trials with 76 primary authors were identified in the systematic review, and of these, 36 authors were randomised to Short (trials=45) and 40 to Long (trials=43). Responses were received for 69 trials. There was no evidence of a difference in response rate between trial arms (Short vs Long, OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.33). There was no evidence of a difference in time to response between trial arms (Short vs Long, HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.51). In total, 27% of authors responded within a day and 22% of authors never responded. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence to suggest that email format had an impact on the number of responses received when acquiring data for a systematic review involving stroke trials or the time taken to receive these responses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6359874 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63598742019-02-25 Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial Godolphin, Peter J Bath, Philip M Montgomery, Alan A BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews often rely on the acquisition of unpublished analyses or data. We carried out a nested randomised trial comparing two different approaches for contacting authors to request additional data for a systematic review. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were authors of published reports of prevention or treatment trials in stroke in which there was central adjudication of events. A primary and secondary research active author were selected as contacts for each trial. INTERVENTIONS: Authors were randomised to be sent either a short email with a protocol of the systematic review attached (‘Short’) or a longer email that contained detailed information and without the protocol attached (‘Long’). A maximum of two emails were sent to each author to obtain a response. The unit of analysis was trial, accounting for clustering by author. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was whether a response was received from authors. Secondary outcomes included time to response, number of reminders needed before a response was received and whether authors agreed to collaborate. RESULTS: 88 trials with 76 primary authors were identified in the systematic review, and of these, 36 authors were randomised to Short (trials=45) and 40 to Long (trials=43). Responses were received for 69 trials. There was no evidence of a difference in response rate between trial arms (Short vs Long, OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.33). There was no evidence of a difference in time to response between trial arms (Short vs Long, HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.51). In total, 27% of authors responded within a day and 22% of authors never responded. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence to suggest that email format had an impact on the number of responses received when acquiring data for a systematic review involving stroke trials or the time taken to receive these responses. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6359874/ /pubmed/30705243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025273 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Methods Godolphin, Peter J Bath, Philip M Montgomery, Alan A Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial |
title | Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial |
title_full | Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial |
title_fullStr | Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial |
title_short | Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial |
title_sort | short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial |
topic | Research Methods |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6359874/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30705243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025273 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT godolphinpeterj shortemailwithattachmentversuslongemailwithoutattachmentwhencontactingauthorstorequestunpublisheddataforasystematicreviewanestedrandomisedtrial AT bathphilipm shortemailwithattachmentversuslongemailwithoutattachmentwhencontactingauthorstorequestunpublisheddataforasystematicreviewanestedrandomisedtrial AT montgomeryalana shortemailwithattachmentversuslongemailwithoutattachmentwhencontactingauthorstorequestunpublisheddataforasystematicreviewanestedrandomisedtrial |