Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30705243›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial.

Peter J Godolphin, Philip M Bath, Alan A Montgomery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of health state utility values for older people with acute myeloid leukaemia.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials? A systematic review.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Study within a review (SWAR).Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Peter J GodolphinNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0648-0992
Philip M BathStroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Alan A MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2016-09-057
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSystematic reviews often rely on the acquisition of unpublished analyses or data. We carried out a nested randomised trial comparing two different approaches for contacting authors to request additional data for a systematic review.

participantsParticipants were authors of published reports of prevention or treatment trials in stroke in which there was central adjudication of events. A primary and secondary research active author were selected as contacts for each trial.

interventionsAuthors were randomised to be sent either a short email with a protocol of the systematic review attached ('Short') or a longer email that contained detailed information and without the protocol attached ('Long'). A maximum of two emails were sent to each author to obtain a response. The unit of analysis was trial, accounting for clustering by author. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was whether a response was received from authors. Secondary outcomes included time to response, number of reminders needed before a response was received and whether authors agreed to collaborate.

results88 trials with 76 primary authors were identified in the systematic review, and of these, 36 authors were randomised to Short (trials=45) and 40 to Long (trials=43). Responses were received for 69 trials. There was no evidence of a difference in response rate between trial arms (Short vs Long, OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.33). There was no evidence of a difference in time to response between trial arms (Short vs Long, HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.51). In total, 27% of authors responded within a day and 22% of authors never responded.

conclusionsThere was no evidence to suggest that email format had an impact on the number of responses received when acquiring data for a systematic review involving stroke trials or the time taken to receive these responses.

Indexed as

AuthorshipInformation Storage and RetrievalSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical Trials as TopicElectronic MailHealth PersonnelHumansLogistic ModelsRandom AllocationStrokedata sharingrandomised trialstrokesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30705243
PMCPMC6359874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.