Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20064225›Full record

ReviewTrials2010

Questionnaires in clinical trials: guidelines for optimal design and administration.

Phil Edwards

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Effects ofNutrients · 2024
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Reasons for non-participation in an international multicenter trial of a new drug for tuberculosis treatment.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2012
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Phil EdwardsDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. phil.edwards@LSHTM.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A good questionnaire design for a clinical trial will minimise bias and maximise precision in the estimates of treatment effect within budget. Attempts to collect more data than will be analysed may risk reducing recruitment (reducing power) and increasing losses to follow-up (possibly introducing bias). The mode of administration can also impact on the cost, quality and completeness of data collected. There is good evidence for design features that improve data completeness but further research is required to evaluate strategies in clinical trials. Theory-based guidelines for style, appearance, and layout of self-administered questionnaires have been proposed but require evaluation.

Indexed as

Research DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical Trials as TopicGuidelines as TopicHumansInternetPostal ServiceReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20064225
PMCPMC2823735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.