Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health2018
Generalisability of an online randomised controlled trial: an empirical analysis.
Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02248558 (Crowdsourcing Versus Conventional HIV Testing Promotion), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Crowdsourcing Versus Conventional HIV Testing Promotion: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Promoting First-Time HIV Testing Among MSM and Transgender Individuals in China
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anticipated HIV stigma among HIV negative men who have sex with men in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Trial
- Condom use social norms and self-efficacy with different kinds of male partners among Chinese men who have sex with men: results from an online survey.BMC public health · 2018Trial
- Crowdsourcing to expand HIV testing among men who have sex with men in China: A closed cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2018Trial
- HCV knowledge and attitudes among HIV-negative MSM and MSM living with HIV in China: results from a cross-sectional online survey.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Coerced syphilis self-testing among men who have sex with men: a nationwide cross-sectional study in China.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Comparing the performance of statistical methods that generalize effect estimates from randomized controlled trials to much larger target populations.Communications in statistics: Simulation and computation · 2022Article
- The Effect of Wearing a Mask on Facial Attractiveness.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2022Article
- Transportability From Randomized Trials to Clinical Care: On Initial HIV Treatment With Efavirenz and Suicidal Thoughts or Behaviors.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Target validity: Bringing treatment of external validity in line with internal validity.Current epidemiology reports · 2020Article
- Syphilis Self-testing: A Nationwide Pragmatic Study Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020Article
- Disease knowledge and attitudes during the COVID-19 epidemic among international migrants in China: a national cross-sectional study.International journal of biological sciences · 2020Article
- Crowdsourcing to Improve HIV and Sexual Health Outcomes: a Scoping Review.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2019Article
- Driving force of condomless sex after online intervention among Chinese men who have sex with men.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Enhancing Public Health Messaging: Discrete-Choice Experiment Evidence on the Design of HIV Testing Messages in China.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- An Internet-Based Self-Testing Model (Easy Test): Cross-Sectional Survey Targeting Men Who Have Sex With Men Who Never Tested for HIV in 14 Provinces of China.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Article
- Out of the Closet, Into the Clinic: Opportunities for Expanding Men Who Have Sex With Men-Competent Services in China.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2018Article
- Estimating preclinical amyloid positivity: A case study transporting ADNI to ARIC.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvestigators increasingly use online methods to recruit participants for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the extent to which participants recruited online represent populations of interest is unknown. We evaluated how generalisable an online RCT sample is to men who have sex with men in China.
methodsInverse probability of sampling weights (IPSW) and the G-formula were used to examine the generalisability of an online RCT using model-based approaches. Online RCT data and national cross-sectional study data from China were analysed to illustrate the process of quantitatively assessing generalisability. The RCT (identifier NCT02248558) randomly assigned participants to a crowdsourced or health marketing video for promotion of HIV testing. The primary outcome was self-reported HIV testing within 4 weeks, with a non-inferiority margin of -3%.
resultsIn the original online RCT analysis, the estimated difference in proportions of HIV tested between the two arms (crowdsourcing and health marketing) was 2.1% (95% CI, -5.4% to 9.7%). The hypothesis that the crowdsourced video was not inferior to the health marketing video to promote HIV testing was not demonstrated. The IPSW and G-formula estimated differences were -2.6% (95% CI, -14.2 to 8.9) and 2.7% (95% CI, -10.7 to 16.2), with both approaches also not establishing non-inferiority.
conclusionsConducting generalisability analysis of an online RCT is feasible. Examining the generalisability of online RCTs is an important step before an intervention is scaled up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02248558.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.