Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34229092›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2021

Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence.

David P French, Lisa M Miles, Diana Elbourne, Andrew Farmer, Martin Gulliford, Louise Locock, Stephen Sutton, Jim McCambridge, MERIT Collaborative Group

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Promoting an active choice among physically inactive adults: a randomised web-based four-arm experiment.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

David P FrenchManchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: david.french@manchester.ac.uk.
Lisa M MilesManchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.
Diana ElbourneDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK.
Andrew FarmerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Martin GullifordSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Louise LocockHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Stephen SuttonBehavioural Science Group, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jim McCambridgeDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
MERIT Collaborative Group
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_17229Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13Medical Research Council MR/K023241/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study (MEasurement Reactions In Trials) aimed to produce recommendations on how best to minimize bias from measurement reactivity (MR) in randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve health. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingThe MERIT study consisted of: (1) an updated systematic review that examined whether measuring participants had effects on participants' health-related behaviors, relative to no-measurement controls, and three rapid reviews to identify: (i) existing guidance on MR; (ii) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on behavioral or affective outcomes; and (iii) studies that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behavior on health-related behavior; (2) a Delphi study to identify the scope of the recommendations; and (3) an expert workshop in October 2018 to discuss potential recommendations in groups.

resultsFourteen recommendations were produced by the expert group to: (1) identify whether bias is likely to be a problem for a trial; (2) decide whether to collect data about whether bias is likely to be a problem; (3) design trials to minimize the likelihood of this bias.

conclusionThese recommendations raise awareness of how and where taking measurements can produce bias in trials, and are thus helpful for trial design.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyGuidelines as TopicPublication BiasBiomedical ResearchHumansPublicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch ReportBiasMeasurement reactionsReactivityRecommendationsResearch designTrials

Identifiers

PMID34229092
PMCPMC7614249
OpenAlexW3174500028

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.