Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26370288›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2015

Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial.

Caroline Barnes, Isabelle Boutron, Bruno Giraudeau, Raphael Porcher, Douglas G Altman, Philippe Ravaud

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02127567 (The Evaluation of a CONSORT Based Online Writing Tool), which is not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT02127567 nacompletednot on this map

The Evaluation of a CONSORT Based Online Writing Tool: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2014 to 2014Enrolled41ConditionsFocus of Study = Medical WritingArmsonline writing tool, writing with no specific support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Guideline
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Caroline BarnesParis Descartes University, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Aile A2 1er étage 1, Place du parvis Notre Dame, 75181, Paris, Cedex 4, France. isabelle.boutron@aphp.fr.
Bruno GiraudeauINSERM, UMR 1153, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité - (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France.
Raphael PorcherCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Aile A2 1er étage 1, Place du parvis Notre Dame, 75181, Paris, Cedex 4, France.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Philippe RavaudCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Aile A2 1er étage 1, Place du parvis Notre Dame, 75181, Paris, Cedex 4, France.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Medical Research Council MR/J00488X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsWe performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT.

resultsForty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes.

conclusionUse of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014).

Indexed as

Medical WritingPeriodicals as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSoftwareAdultFemaleHumansMalePublishing

Identifiers

PMID26370288
PMCPMC4570037

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.