Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised controlled trial.

Lola Fourcade, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher, Lucie Ronceray, Gabriel Baron, Philippe Ravaud
{"title":"Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Lola Fourcade,&nbsp;Isabelle Boutron,&nbsp;David Moher,&nbsp;Lucie Ronceray,&nbsp;Gabriel Baron,&nbsp;Philippe Ravaud","doi":"10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a pedagogical tool to enhance the understanding of a checklist that evaluates reports of nonpharmacological trials (CLEAR NPT).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Paired randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Clinicians and systematic reviewers.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>We developed an Internet-based computer learning system (ICLS). This pedagogical tool used many examples from published randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the main coding difficulties encountered when using this checklist. Randomised participants received either a specific Web-based training with the ICLS (intervention group) or no specific training.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the rate of correct answers compared to a criterion standard for coding a report of randomised controlled trials with the CLEAR NPT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between April and June 2006, 78 participants were randomly assigned to receive training with the ICLS (39) or no training (39). Participants trained by the ICLS did not differ from the control group in performance on the CLEAR NPT. The mean paired difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval was 0.5 (-5.1 to 6.1). The rate of correct answers did not differ between the two groups regardless of the CLEAR NPT item. Combining both groups, the rate of correct answers was high or items related to allocation sequence (79.5%), description of the intervention (82.0%), blinding of patients (79.5%), and follow-up schedule (83.3%). The rate of correct answers was low for items related to allocation concealment (46.1%), co-interventions (30.3%), blinding of outcome assessors (53.8%), specific measures to avoid ascertainment bias (28.6%), and intention-to-treat analysis (60.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although we showed no difference in effect between the intervention and control groups, our results highlight the gap in knowledge and urgency for education on important aspects of trial conduct.</p>","PeriodicalId":87416,"journal":{"name":"PLoS clinical trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a pedagogical tool to enhance the understanding of a checklist that evaluates reports of nonpharmacological trials (CLEAR NPT).

Design: Paired randomised controlled trial.

Participants: Clinicians and systematic reviewers.

Interventions: We developed an Internet-based computer learning system (ICLS). This pedagogical tool used many examples from published randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the main coding difficulties encountered when using this checklist. Randomised participants received either a specific Web-based training with the ICLS (intervention group) or no specific training.

Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the rate of correct answers compared to a criterion standard for coding a report of randomised controlled trials with the CLEAR NPT.

Results: Between April and June 2006, 78 participants were randomly assigned to receive training with the ICLS (39) or no training (39). Participants trained by the ICLS did not differ from the control group in performance on the CLEAR NPT. The mean paired difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval was 0.5 (-5.1 to 6.1). The rate of correct answers did not differ between the two groups regardless of the CLEAR NPT item. Combining both groups, the rate of correct answers was high or items related to allocation sequence (79.5%), description of the intervention (82.0%), blinding of patients (79.5%), and follow-up schedule (83.3%). The rate of correct answers was low for items related to allocation concealment (46.1%), co-interventions (30.3%), blinding of outcome assessors (53.8%), specific measures to avoid ascertainment bias (28.6%), and intention-to-treat analysis (60.2%).

Conclusions: Although we showed no difference in effect between the intervention and control groups, our results highlight the gap in knowledge and urgency for education on important aspects of trial conduct.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发和评价提高对质量检查表理解的教学工具:一项随机对照试验。
目的:本研究的目的是开发和评估一种教学工具,以提高对评估非药物试验报告的清单(CLEAR NPT)的理解。设计:配对随机对照试验。参与者:临床医生和系统审稿人。干预措施:我们开发了基于互联网的计算机学习系统(ICLS)。这个教学工具使用了许多来自已发表的随机对照试验的例子来演示使用该清单时遇到的主要编码困难。随机分组的参与者要么接受ICLS(干预组)的特定网络培训,要么不接受特定培训。结果测量:主要结果是与CLEAR NPT编码随机对照试验报告的标准标准进行比较的正确答案率。结果:在2006年4月至6月期间,78名参与者被随机分配接受ICLS培训(39人)或不接受培训(39人)。接受ICLS培训的参与者在CLEAR NPT方面的表现与对照组没有差异。平均配对差和相应的95%置信区间为0.5(-5.1至6.1)。正确率在两组之间没有差别,不管是否有明确的不扩散核武器项目。两组比较,分配顺序(79.5%)、干预描述(82.0%)、患者盲法(79.5%)、随访计划(83.3%)相关项目的正确率较高。分配隐藏(46.1%)、联合干预(30.3%)、结果评估者的盲化(53.8%)、避免确知偏差的具体措施(28.6%)和意向治疗分析(60.2%)相关项目的正确率较低。结论:虽然我们显示干预组和对照组之间的效果没有差异,但我们的结果强调了对试验行为重要方面的知识和教育的紧迫性的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can biomarkers identify women at increased stroke risk? The Women's Health Initiative Hormone Trials. A cluster-randomised trial evaluating an intervention for patients with stress-related mental disorders and sick leave in primary care. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for prevention of HIV infection in women: a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The effect of acclydine in chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Artemether-lumefantrine versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for treatment of malaria: a randomized trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1