Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26276278›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2015

Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial.

Laure Perrier, Nav Persaud, Kevin E Thorpe, Sharon E Straus

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02414360 (Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

NCT02414360 nacompletednot on this map

Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making: a Pilot Parallel, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of TorontoRan2014 to 2014Enrolled56ConditionsEvidence-Based MedicineArmsShortened Format, Full Length
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Laure PerrierInstitute of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. l.perrier@utoronto.ca.
Nav PersaudDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, University of Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Canada. nav.persaud@utoronto.ca.
Kevin E ThorpeDalla Lana, School of Public Health, Applied Health Research Centre, Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, University of Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Canada. kevin.thorpe@utoronto.ca.
Sharon E StrausFaculty of Medicine, Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, University of Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Canada. sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence suggests that systematic reviews are used infrequently by physicians in clinical decision-making. One proposed solution is to create filtered resources so that information is validated and refined in order to be read quickly. Two shortened systematic review formats were developed to enhance their use in clinical decision-making.

methodsTo prepare for a full-scale trial, we conducted a pilot study to test methods and procedures in order to refine the processes. A recruitment email was sent to physicians practicing full- or part-time in family medicine or general internal medicine. The pilot study took place in an online environment and eligible physicians were randomized to one of the systematic review formats (shortened or full-length) and instructed to read the document. Participants were asked to provide the clinical bottom line and apply the information presented to a clinical scenario. Participants' answers were evaluated independently by two investigators against "gold standard" answers prepared by an expert panel.

resultsFifty-six clinicians completed the pilot study within a 2-month period with a response rate of 4.3 %. Agreement between investigators in assessing participants' answers was determined by calculating a kappa statistic. Two questions were assessed separately, and a kappa statistic was calculated at 1.00 (100 % agreement) for each.

conclusionsAgreement between investigators in assessing participants' answers is satisfactory. Although recruitment for the pilot study was completed in a reasonable time-frame, response rates were low and will require large numbers of contacts. The results indicate that conducting a full-scale trial is feasible.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02414360 .

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingEvidence-Based MedicineSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID26276278
PMCPMC4542122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.