Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany.
Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jul;135:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.006. Epub 2021 Feb 9.
To compare two strategies for requesting additional information for systematic reviews (SR) from study authors.
Randomised study within a SR of hospital volume-outcome relationships in total knee arthroplasty. We sent personalized email requests for additional information to study authors as either email text ("Email" group) or attachment with self-developed, personalised data request forms ("Attachment" group). The primary outcome was the response rate, the secondary outcomes were the data completeness rate and the reviewer time invested in author contact.
Of 57 study authors, 29 were randomised to the Email group and 28 to the Attachment group. The response rate was 93% for Email and 75% for Attachment (odds ratio 4.5, 95% confidence interval [0.9-24.0]). Complete data were provided by 55% (Email) vs. 36% (Attachment) of authors (odds ratio 2.2 [0.8-6.4]). The mean reviewer time was shorter in the Email (mean ± standard deviation of 20.2±14.4 minutes/author) than the Attachment group (31.8±14.4 minutes/author) with a mean difference of 11.6 [4.1-19.1] minutes/author.
Personalised email requests elicited high response but only moderate data completeness rates regardless of the method (email text or attachment). Email requests as text took less reviewer time than creating attachments.
比较向研究作者请求系统评价（SR）额外信息的两种策略。
在全膝关节置换术的医院量效关系的 SR 内进行的随机研究。我们向研究作者发送了个性化的电子邮件请求，请求额外信息，要么是电子邮件文本（“电子邮件”组），要么是带有自开发的个性化数据请求表的附件（“附件”组）。主要结果是回复率，次要结果是数据完整性率和审查员在作者联系上投入的时间。
在 57 位研究作者中，29 位被随机分配到电子邮件组，28 位被分配到附件组。电子邮件组的回复率为 93%，附件组为 75%（优势比 4.5，95%置信区间[0.9-24.0]）。提供完整数据的作者比例为 55%（电子邮件）与 36%（附件）（优势比 2.2[0.8-6.4]）。电子邮件组的平均审查员时间较短（每位作者的平均±标准偏差为 20.2±14.4 分钟），而附件组为 31.8±14.4 分钟/作者，平均差异为 11.6[4.1-19.1]分钟/作者。
个性化电子邮件请求引起了较高的回复率，但无论方法（电子邮件文本或附件）如何，数据完整性率都只有中等水平。电子邮件请求作为文本比创建附件花费的审查员时间更少。
