Improving Understanding of a Quality Checklist for Nonpharmacological Trials
Author Information
Author(s): Fourcade Lola, Boutron Isabelle, Moher David, Ronceray Lucie, Baron Gabriel, Ravaud Philippe
Primary Institution: Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot, UFR de Médecine, Paris, France
Hypothesis
Does an Internet-based computer learning system improve the understanding of the CLEAR NPT checklist among clinicians and systematic reviewers?
Conclusion
The study found no significant difference in performance between participants trained with the ICLS and those who received no training, highlighting a need for better education on trial conduct.
Supporting Evidence
- Participants trained by the ICLS did not differ from the control group in performance on the CLEAR NPT.
- The rate of correct answers was high for some items but low for others.
- Training did not significantly improve the understanding of the checklist.
- Most participants had prior experience with quality assessment.
- Imbalance in expertise between groups may have affected results.
Takeaway
The study tried to teach doctors how to use a checklist for evaluating trials, but it didn't help them do any better than those who didn't get the training.
Methodology
A paired randomised controlled trial comparing an Internet-based training system to no training.
Potential Biases
Participants were not blinded to their training group, which could introduce bias in their responses.
Limitations
Participants were already experienced in assessing trial quality, which may have affected the results.
Participant Demographics
Clinicians and systematic reviewers with varying levels of experience in quality assessment.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.5
Confidence Interval
−5.1 to 6.1
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website