Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28515181›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Measuring ability to assess claims about treatment effects: the development of the 'Claim Evaluation Tools'.

Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren, Daniel Semakula, Allen Nsangi, Andrew David Oxman, Iain Chalmers, Sarah Rosenbaum, Øystein Guttersrud, IHC Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Astrid Austvoll-DahlgrenNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Daniel SemakulaMakerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Allen NsangiMakerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Andrew David OxmanNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Iain ChalmersJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK.
Sarah RosenbaumNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Øystein GuttersrudNorwegian Centre for Science Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
IHC Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the development of the Claim Evaluation Tools, a set of flexible items to measure people's ability to assess claims about treatment effects.

settingMethodologists and members of the community (including children) in Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Norway, the UK and Australia.

participantsIn the iterative development of the items, we used purposeful sampling of people with training in research methodology, such as teachers of evidence-based medicine, as well as patients and members of the public from low-income and high-income countries. Development consisted of 4 processes: (1) determining the scope of the Claim Evaluation Tools and development of items; (2) expert item review and feedback (n=63); (3) cognitive interviews with children and adult end-users (n=109); and (4) piloting and administrative tests (n=956).

resultsThe Claim Evaluation Tools database currently includes a battery of multiple-choice items. Each item begins with a scenario which is intended to be relevant across contexts, and which can be used for children (from age 10  and above), adult members of the public and health professionals. People with expertise in research methods judged the items to have face validity, and end-users judged them relevant and acceptable in their settings. In response to feedback from methodologists and end-users, we simplified some text, explained terms where needed, and redesigned formats and instructions.

conclusionsThe Claim Evaluation Tools database is a flexible resource from which researchers, teachers and others can design measurement instruments to meet their own requirements. These evaluation tools are being managed and made freely available for non-commercial use (on request) through Testing Treatments TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: PACTR201606001679337 and PACTR201606001676150; Pre-results.

Indexed as

ComprehensionEvidence-Based MedicineFeedbackPatient Outcome AssessmentPatient ParticipationProfessional CompetenceDecision Support TechniquesDeveloped CountriesDeveloping CountriesHealth PersonnelHealth ResourcesHumansRisk Assessmentevidence based medicinehared decision makinghealth literacymultiple-choiceoutcome measurementpatient education

Identifiers

PMID28515181
PMCPMC5777467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.