Suppr超能文献

随机对照试验中评估的基于网络干预措施的使用指标:系统评价

Usage Metrics of Web-Based Interventions Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review.

作者信息

Koneska Elena, Appelbe Duncan, Williamson Paula R, Dodd Susanna

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Oxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 16;22(4):e15474. doi: 10.2196/15474.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of web-based interventions (defined as an intervention that can be downloaded or accessed on the internet through a web browser) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has increased over the past two decades. Little is known about how participants' use of the intervention is measured, reported, and analyzed in these studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the evaluation of web-based interventions in RCTs, assessing study characteristics and the methods used to record, and adjust for, intervention usage.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all published reports of RCTs that involved a web-based intervention. A random sample of 100 published trials was selected for detailed data extraction. Information on trial characteristics was extracted, including whether web usage data were recorded, and if so, the methods used to gather these data and whether these data were used to inform efficacy analyses.

RESULTS

A PubMed search identified 812 trials of web-based interventions published up to the end of 2017 and demonstrated a growing trend over time. Of the 100 studies reviewed, 90 studies collected web usage data, but more than half (49/90, 54%) of these studies did not state the method used for recording web usage. Only four studies attempted to check on the reliability of their web usage data collection methods. A total of 39% (35/90) studies reported patterns or levels of web intervention use, of which 21% (19/90) studies adjusted for intervention use in their outcome analysis, but only two of these used appropriate statistical methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Trialists frequently report a measure of web-based intervention usage but do not always report the collection method or provide enough detail on their analysis of web usage. Appropriate statistical methods to account for intervention use are rarely used and are not well reported even in the very few trials in which they are used. The number of trialists who attempt to check on the reliability of their web usage collection methods is extremely low.

摘要

背景

在过去二十年中,随机对照试验(RCT)中基于网络的干预措施(定义为可通过网络浏览器在互联网上下载或访问的干预措施)的评估有所增加。对于这些研究中如何测量、报告和分析参与者对干预措施的使用情况,人们知之甚少。

目的

本研究旨在回顾随机对照试验中基于网络的干预措施的评估情况,评估研究特征以及用于记录和调整干预措施使用情况的方法。

方法

对文献进行系统综述,以识别所有已发表的涉及基于网络的干预措施的随机对照试验报告。随机抽取100篇已发表的试验进行详细的数据提取。提取试验特征信息,包括是否记录网络使用数据,如果记录了,用于收集这些数据的方法以及这些数据是否用于疗效分析。

结果

PubMed搜索识别出截至2017年底发表的812项基于网络的干预措施试验,并显示出随时间推移的增长趋势。在审查的100项研究中,90项研究收集了网络使用数据,但其中超过一半(49/90,54%)的研究未说明记录网络使用的方法。只有四项研究试图检查其网络使用数据收集方法的可靠性。共有39%(35/90)的研究报告了网络干预措施使用的模式或水平,其中21%(19/90)的研究在其结果分析中对干预措施的使用进行了调整,但其中只有两项使用了适当的统计方法。

结论

试验者经常报告基于网络的干预措施使用情况的测量,但并不总是报告收集方法或提供其网络使用分析的足够细节。用于考虑干预措施使用情况的适当统计方法很少使用,即使在使用这些方法的极少数试验中也没有得到很好的报告。试图检查其网络使用收集方法可靠性的试验者数量极低。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6e42/7193439/535754e28015/jmir_v22i4e15474_fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验