Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26032626›Full record

Trial reportThe International journal of pharmacy practice2015

A pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the utility of an e-learning package that trains users in adverse drug reaction causality.

Elizabeth J Conroy, Jamie J Kirkham, Jennifer R Bellis, Matthew Peak, Rosalind L Smyth, Paula R Williamson, Munir Pirmohamed

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The International journal of pharmacy practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Elizabeth J ConroyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Jamie J KirkhamDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Jennifer R BellisResearch and Development, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool.
Matthew PeakResearch and Development, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool.
Rosalind L SmythInstitute of Child Health, University College London, London.
Paula R WilliamsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Munir PirmohamedDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.

Funding

Department of Health NF-SI-0512-10064Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1170Medical Research Council MR/L006758/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCausality assessment of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals is often informal which can lead to inconsistencies in practice. The Liverpool Causality Assessment Tool (LCAT) offers a systematic approach. An interactive, web-based, e-learning package, the Liverpool ADR Causality Assessment e-learning Package (LACAeP), was designed to improve causality assessment using the LCAT. This study aimed to (1) get feedback on usability and usefulness on the LACAeP, identify areas for improvement and development, and generate data on effect size to inform a larger scale study; and (2) test the usability and usefulness of the LCAT.

methodsA pilot, single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial hosted by the University of Liverpool was undertaken. Participants were paediatric medical trainees at specialty training level 1+ within the Mersey and North-West England Deaneries. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) access to the LACAeP or no training. The primary efficacy outcome was score by correct classification, predefined by a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Following participation, feedback on both the LCAT and the LACAeP was obtained, via a built in survey, from participants. KEY

findingsOf 57 randomised, 35 completed the study. Feedback was mainly positive although areas for improvement were identified. Seventy-four per cent of participants found the LCAT easy to use and 78% found the LACAeP training useful. Sixty-one per cent would be unlikely to recommend the training. Scores ranged from 4 to 13 out of 20. The LACAeP increased scores by 1.3, but this was not significant.

conclusionsImproving the LACAeP before testing it in an appropriately powered trial, informed by the differences observed, is required. Rigorous evaluation will enable a quality resource that will be of value in healthcare professional training.

Indexed as

CausalityChildComputer-Assisted InstructionDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEnglandFeedbackHealth PersonnelHumansInternetPediatricsPilot ProjectsSingle-Blind Methodadverse drug reactionsclinical pharmacydecision aidsevidence-based practiceRCT

Identifiers

PMID26032626
PMCPMC4755231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.