Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: A randomised controlled trial

PLoS Clinical Trials

Volumn 2, Issue 5, 2007, Pages

  Fourcade, Lola ^a,b,c   Boutron, Isabelle ^a,b,c   Moher, David ^d,e   Ronceray, Lucie ^a,b   Baron, Gabriel ^a,b,c   Ravaud, Philippe ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^b BICHAT HOSPITAL   (France)

^c INSERM   (France)

^d CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CODING; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EDUCATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERNET BASED COMPUTER LEARNING SYSTEM; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEDAGOGICS; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 34249802339     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15555887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pctr.0020022     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, et al. (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352: 609-613.
2. Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, Hayes RJ (1996) Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: Survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ 312: 742-744.
3. Moher D (1998) CONSORT: An evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA 279: 1489-1491.
4. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, et al. (2002) Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 287: 2973-2982.
5. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273: 408-412.
6. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900.
7. Higgins J, Green S editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.X [updated September 2006]. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook. Accessed 6 April 2007.
8. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, et al. (2005) Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: Results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 330: 1053.
9. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, et al. (1995) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16: 62-73.
10. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, Vermeer F, Widdershoven JW, de Bie RA, et al. (2002) The influence of methodologic quality on the conclusion of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18: 11-23.
11. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, et al. (1998) The Delphi list: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 51: 1235-1241.
12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1-12.
13. Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P, Giraudeau B, Poiraudeau S, et al. (2005) A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 1233-1240.
14. Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH (2001) Quality in the reporting of randomized trials in surgery: Is the Jadad scale reliable? Control Clin Trials 22: 687-688.
15. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Lacchetti C, et al. (2001) Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 285: 2000-2003.
16. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, et al. (1999) Assessing the quality of randomized trials: Reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 20: 448-452.
17. Hollis S, Campbell F (1999) What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319: 670-674.
18. Schulz KF (1996) Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet 348: 596-598.
19. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, Hebert P (2002) Post-randomisation exclusions: The intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ 325: 652-654.
20. Thabut G, Estellat C, Boutron I, Marc Samama C, Ravaud P (2005) Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism. Eur Heart J 27: 227-236.
21. Houghton (1996) Educational software: Computer assisted instruction. http://www.ceap.wcu.edu/houghton/learner/Look/CAI.html. Accessed 6 April 2007.
22. Judith Federhofer Medical Expert Systems (2007) http://www.computer.privateweb.at/judith. Accessed 6 April 2007.
23. PCAI Expert Systems (2007) http://www.pcai.com/web/ai_info/ expert_systems.html. Accessed 6 April 2007.
24. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, et al. (2004) Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 328: 673.
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA 287: 2784-2786.
26. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2002) Allocation concealment in clinical trials. JAMA 288: 2406-2407; author reply 2408-2409.
27. Pildal J, Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Forfang E, Altman DG, et al. (2005) Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: Cohort study. BMJ 330: 1049.
28. Schulz KF (1995) Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA 274: 1456-1458.
29. Montori VM, Guyatt GH (2001) Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ 165: 1339-1341.
30. Baron G, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P (2005) Violation of the intent-to-treat principle and rate of missing data in superiority trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 52: 1858-1865.
31. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 83: 713-721.