CClinicalTrials.gg
WithdrawnNCT03283592RANKUpdated Apr 4, 2019

Review and Assessment of Network Meta-analyses for Knowledge Uptake Study

An interventional study of Rank-Heat Plot and SUCRA Plot in Clinical Decision-making, sponsored by Unity Health Toronto. Withdrawn. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-04-04.

Sponsored by Unity Health Toronto · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research

Why this study was withdrawn
did not receive funding to conduct study
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
0
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This randomized controlled trial will assess the interpretability of the rank-heat plot for presenting the results of network meta-analysis in comparison to SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) plots which are suggested to present one of the best ranking statistics.

Read the detailed description

Clinicians are responsible for making decisions to improve health outcomes. When available, clinicians should use the results of a knowledge synthesis, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to inform decision-making. Pairwise meta-analyses are limited, however, by the availability of RCTs that directly compare interventions. This is troublesome for knowledge users who require results from comparisons of multiple interventions to inform decision-making. To address this concern, the use of network meta-analyses (NMAs) is increasing in healthcare the literature. NMAs are a useful tool because they can summarize results from numerous studies and interventions. It is unclear how NMA results should be presented to increase the likelihood of clinicians understanding and using the results to improve health outcomes. Thus, a randomized controlled trial of NMA plots will be conducted. Participants will be randomized to either the rank-heat plot (intervention) or SUCRA plots (control) that present the same NMA results of a study that explored the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for falls prevention. Outcomes will be ascertained via an online survey. The RCT will take place in an online environment and will require each participant to partake in a single session. This study will help guide best practices for the presentation of reviews to improve the uptake and use of NMA.

02

Conditions studied

  • Clinical Decision-making
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Clinicians must be accredited to practice in Canada and working (full- or part-time) as a family physician or general internist.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Unable to read and understand English;
  • No access to the internet;
  • Read, co-authored or peer-reviewed the study: "Quality Improvement strategies to Prevent Falls in the Elderly: A systematic review and network meta-analysis" (manuscript in preparation).
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
0 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Rank-Heat Plot

    The intervention group will receive an online survey to evaluate their interpretation of the results from the NMA with a rank-heat plot including results from 2 outcomes that were selected by our knowledge users (#injurious falls, #fractures).

    Other: Rank-Heat Plot

  • Active comparator
    SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) Plot

    The control group will receive an online survey to evaluate their interpretation of the results from the NMA with the SUCRA plots including results from the same 2 outcomes that will be presented to the intervention group (i.e., #injurious falls, #fractures).

    Other: SUCRA Plot

Interventions

  • OtherRank-Heat Plot

    provides a visual presentation of treatment hierarchy across multiple outcomes

  • OtherSUCRA Plot

    provides a visual presentation of treatment ranking for a single outcome.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Proportion of participants who appropriately define the clinical "bottom line." Participants' answers will be independently evaluated by two investigators for agreement with an expert panel's recommendation.

    Time frame: during experiment via single session, <1 hour survey

Secondary outcomes

  1. Proportion of participants who accurately apply the evidence to the provided clinical scenario.

    Time frame: during experiment via single session, <1 hour survey

  2. Completeness of survey data evaluated by two independent investigators

    Time frame: Immediate post-experiment

  3. Time taken to complete survey

    Time frame: Immediate post-experiment

06

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

07

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03283592
Lead sponsor
Unity Health Toronto
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 14, 2017
Start date
Jul 2019 (estimated)
Primary completion
Jan 2021 (estimated)
Completion
Jan 2021 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 4, 2019

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is withdrawn, as verified in Apr 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion