Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32297870›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Usage Metrics of Web-Based Interventions Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review.

Elena Koneska, Duncan Appelbe, Paula R Williamson, Susanna Dodd

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

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

Elena KoneskaDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4068-8105
Duncan AppelbeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1493-0391
Paula R WilliamsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9802-6636
Susanna DoddDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2851-3337

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evaluation of web-based interventions (defined as an intervention that can be downloaded or accessed on the internet through a web browser) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has increased over the past two decades. Little is known about how participants' use of the intervention is measured, reported, and analyzed in these studies.

objectiveThis study aimed to review the evaluation of web-based interventions in RCTs, assessing study characteristics and the methods used to record, and adjust for, intervention usage.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all published reports of RCTs that involved a web-based intervention. A random sample of 100 published trials was selected for detailed data extraction. Information on trial characteristics was extracted, including whether web usage data were recorded, and if so, the methods used to gather these data and whether these data were used to inform efficacy analyses.

resultsA PubMed search identified 812 trials of web-based interventions published up to the end of 2017 and demonstrated a growing trend over time. Of the 100 studies reviewed, 90 studies collected web usage data, but more than half (49/90, 54%) of these studies did not state the method used for recording web usage. Only four studies attempted to check on the reliability of their web usage data collection methods. A total of 39% (35/90) studies reported patterns or levels of web intervention use, of which 21% (19/90) studies adjusted for intervention use in their outcome analysis, but only two of these used appropriate statistical methods.

conclusionsTrialists frequently report a measure of web-based intervention usage but do not always report the collection method or provide enough detail on their analysis of web usage. Appropriate statistical methods to account for intervention use are rarely used and are not well reported even in the very few trials in which they are used. The number of trialists who attempt to check on the reliability of their web usage collection methods is extremely low.

Indexed as

Internet-Based InterventionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of Resultsinternetrandomized controlled trialsystematic reviewweb-based interventionsweb usage data

Identifiers

PMID32297870
PMCPMC7193439

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.