Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962671›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Comparing the usability of the World Health Organization's conventional tuberculosis guidelines to the eTB recommendations map: A two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial.

Micayla Matthews, Tamara Lotfi, Nancy Santesso, Mark Loeb, Dominik Mertz, Zain Chagla, Anisa Hajizadeh, Thomas Piggott, Bart Dietl, Holger J Schünemann

Registry-linked trialFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04745897 (Comparing the Accessibility of the World Health Organization's Tuberculosis Guidelines to the eTB Catalogue of Recommendations), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

NCT04745897 nacompletednot on this map

Comparing the Accessibility of the World Health Organization's Tuberculosis Guidelines to the eTB Catalogue of Recommendations: A Two-Arm Superiority Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled244ConditionsTuberculosisArmseTB Catalogue of Recommendations (eTB), World Health Organization Tuberculosis Website (WHO TB)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Micayla MatthewsMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0160-2383
Tamara LotfiMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6101-3946
Nancy SantessoMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Mark LoebMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Dominik MertzMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Zain ChaglaMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3619-7031
Anisa HajizadehMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1919-5189
Thomas PiggottMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Bart DietlEvidence Prime Incorporated, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannMcMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3211-8479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Best practices for the dissemination of global health guidelines has not undergone rigorous research. We used a new approach to digitizing World Health Organization (WHO) global tuberculosis guideline recommendations (eTB RecMap) and compared its usability to the conventional method of accessing TB recommendations using the WHO website. We conducted a two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial using a survey among global stakeholders who were past or planned future users of TB guidelines, recommendations, or policy advice. We assigned participants randomly (1:1) to complete an activity using the WHO eTB RecMap or the conventional website. The primary outcome was the accessibility of information and secondary outcomes understanding, satisfaction, and preference for one of the two formats. Between February 26 and August 29, 2021, we received 478 responses from stakeholders, of whom 244 (122 per group) were eligible and provided analysable results. Participants rated the eTB RecMap as more accessible, on average, when compared to the conventional website (on a seven-point scale, the mean difference {MD} was 0.9; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.6, 1.2; p < 0.001) and were more likely to correctly answer understanding questions. This is the first trial comparing digitized dissemination formats of health guideline recommendations. Stakeholders rated the WHO eTB RecMap as more accessible than the conventional WHO website for the tested recommendations. They also understood presented information better. The findings support better usability of TB information through the eTB RecMap and contribute to the effort to end the TB epidemic. Trial registration: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04745897) on February 9, 2021.

Identifiers

PMID36962671
PMCPMC10021182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read36
reference markers read2
identifiers read11
Read underepoch 390

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.