Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22039407›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2011

Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from solomon 4-group studies.

Jim McCambridge, Kaanan Butor-Bhavsar, John Witton, Diana Elbourne

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Measurement Reactivity in a Randomized Clinical Trial Using Self-Reported Data.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2017
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Advance care planning and end-of-life decision making in dialysis: a randomized controlled trial targeting patients and their surrogates.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2015
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Does electronic monitoring influence adherence to medication? Randomized controlled trial of measurement reactivity.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2014
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Jim McCambridgeCentre for Research on Drugs & Health Behaviour, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. Jim.McCambridge@lshtm.ac.uk
Kaanan Butor-Bhavsar
John Witton
Diana Elbourne

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 086516MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe possible effects of research assessments on participant behaviour have attracted research interest, especially in studies with behavioural interventions and/or outcomes. Assessments may introduce bias in randomised controlled trials by altering receptivity to intervention in experimental groups and differentially impacting on the behaviour of control groups. In a Solomon 4-group design, participants are randomly allocated to one of four arms: (1) assessed experimental group; (2) unassessed experimental group (3) assessed control group; or (4) unassessed control group. This design provides a test of the internal validity of effect sizes obtained in conventional two-group trials by controlling for the effects of baseline assessment, and assessing interactions between the intervention and baseline assessment. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate evidence from Solomon 4-group studies with behavioural outcomes that baseline research assessments themselves can introduce bias into trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsElectronic databases were searched, supplemented by citation searching. Studies were eligible if they reported appropriately analysed results in peer-reviewed journals and used Solomon 4-group designs in non-laboratory settings with behavioural outcome measures and sample sizes of 20 per group or greater. Ten studies from a range of applied areas were included. There was inconsistent evidence of main effects of assessment, sparse evidence of interactions with behavioural interventions, and a lack of convincing data in relation to the research question for this review. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: There were too few high quality completed studies to infer conclusively that biases stemming from baseline research assessments do or do not exist. There is, therefore a need for new rigorous Solomon 4-group studies that are purposively designed to evaluate the potential for research assessments to cause bias in behaviour change trials.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyObserver VariationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultChildHumans

Identifiers

PMID22039407
PMCPMC3198466

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.