Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 12:40 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 10:51 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT02127567
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2023-11-21
First Post:
2014-04-29
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
True
Brief Title:
The Evaluation of a CONSORT Based Online Writing Tool
Sponsor:
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
The Evaluation of a CONSORT Based Online Writing Tool: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2014-04
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
COBWEB
Brief Summary:
Introduction: Inadequate reporting is a frequent cause of waste of research. For example, essential information for evaluating the risk of bias such as the method of randomization is lacking in 75% of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and over 30% of reports do not provide sufficient details to allow replication of the treatment evaluated in the trial in clinical practice. To overcome this issue, the CONSORT statement, an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting RCTs was developed in 1996. These guidelines have since been updated in 2001 and more recently in 2010. In addition, extensions to the main CONSORT statement have been developed to give additional guidance for RCTs with specific designs (eg cluster), data (eg harm), and interventions (eg nonpharmacologic treatments). Many journals endorse the CONSORT statement. Some journals provide recommendations to authors to follow the CONSORT guidelines and some editors enforce the use of the CONSORT guidelines by requesting authors to submit a checklist in either the submission or acceptance stage. Nevertheless, inadequate reporting remains.
Our objective is to evaluate the impact of the CONSORT based online writing tool on the completeness of reporting.
Our objective is to evaluate the impact of the CONSORT based online writing tool on the completeness of reporting.
Detailed Description:
Context Inadequate reporting is a frequent cause of waste of research. For example, essential information for evaluating the risk of bias such as the method of randomization is lacking in 75% of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and over 30% of reports do not provide sufficient details to allow replication of the treatment evaluated in the trial in clinical practice. To overcome this issue, the CONSORT statement, an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting RCTs was developed in 1996. These guidelines have since been updated in 2001 and more recently in 2010. In addition, extensions to the main CONSORT statement have been developed to give additional guidance for RCTs with specific designs (eg cluster), data (eg harm), and interventions (eg nonpharmacologic treatments). Many journals endorse the CONSORT statement. Some journals provide recommendations to authors to follow the CONSORT guidelines and some editors enforce the use of the CONSORT guidelines by requesting authors to submit a checklist in either the submission or acceptance stage. Nevertheless, inadequate reporting remains.
Hypothesis We hypothesize that to improve reporting, the CONSORT guidelines must be implemented at the stage of the writing of the manuscript instead of at the stage of journal submission or peer review process. We developed a CONSORT based online writing tool to improve the completeness of reporting. This tool focuses on some domains of the methods section of a 2-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial evaluating pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment.
Objective Our objective is to evaluate the impact of the CONSORT based online writing tool on the completeness of reporting.
Methods Study design: We will perform a "split-manuscript" randomized controlled trial, adapted from the split-body design. We will consider 6 domains of the methods section: trial design, randomization, blinding, participants, interventions, and outcomes. The unit of randomization will be the domain and the allocation ratio 1:1. Each study participant will receive the experimental intervention (the tool) for 3 of the 6 domains and the control intervention (no tool) for thther 3 domains.
Participants: Masters and doctoral students Intervention: The use of the online writing tool for writing the methods section of an article from an RCT protocol.
Comparator: The writing the methods section of an article from an RCT protocol with no specific support.
Primary outcome: The primary outcome will be the average score for completeness of reporting.
Number of participants expected: 40
Hypothesis We hypothesize that to improve reporting, the CONSORT guidelines must be implemented at the stage of the writing of the manuscript instead of at the stage of journal submission or peer review process. We developed a CONSORT based online writing tool to improve the completeness of reporting. This tool focuses on some domains of the methods section of a 2-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial evaluating pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment.
Objective Our objective is to evaluate the impact of the CONSORT based online writing tool on the completeness of reporting.
Methods Study design: We will perform a "split-manuscript" randomized controlled trial, adapted from the split-body design. We will consider 6 domains of the methods section: trial design, randomization, blinding, participants, interventions, and outcomes. The unit of randomization will be the domain and the allocation ratio 1:1. Each study participant will receive the experimental intervention (the tool) for 3 of the 6 domains and the control intervention (no tool) for thther 3 domains.
Participants: Masters and doctoral students Intervention: The use of the online writing tool for writing the methods section of an article from an RCT protocol.
Comparator: The writing the methods section of an article from an RCT protocol with no specific support.
Primary outcome: The primary outcome will be the average score for completeness of reporting.
Number of participants expected: 40
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: