Web-based Tool to Improve the Assessment of Reporting (COBPeer)

NCT03119376 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: AC001
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 120
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research publication. Despite being essential, the assessment of the completeness of the reporting and the identification of switched outcomes are not appropriately performed. Furthermore, these tasks do not suppose a high level of expertise and could be performed by junior researchers. To assess the completeness of reporting and identified switched outcome(s), junior peer reviewers could use a simple online tool (COBPeer) based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 checklist and Elaboration and Explanation publication for reporting parallel-group RCTs. The tool would feature bullet points eliciting the meaning of each checklist item. The aim of this study that will compare the accuracy of junior peer reviewers using the tool to that of usual peer reviewers when evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched of primary outcome(s) in reports of RCTs

Conditions

Peer Review

Keywords

peer review; online tool; Randomized Controlled Trial

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript

  Each item will be classified as"adequately reported" (yes/no)

  through study completion, an average of 6 month

Secondary Outcomes (2)

• the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the 10 CONSORT items

  through study completion, an average of 6 month

• the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify switch in primary outcome(s).

  through study completion, an average of 6 month

Study Arms (3)

USUAL PEER REVIEWER

NO INTERVENTION

Two researchers will read all the peer-review reports and editors' comments for the first round. The researchers will determine whether the peer-reviewers and/or editors raised some concern on the completeness of reporting of the 10 CONSORT items considered and identified a switch primary outcome(s) between the manuscript and the register. The assessment of all peer-review reports and editors' comments for each manuscript will be combined (i.e., the item will be rated as incompletely reported if at least one peer reviewer rated it as such). The 2 researchers will be blinded to the gold standard assessment.

COBPeer

EXPERIMENTAL

Junior peer reviewers will be invited to participate in an online training course on peer review (COBPeer).

Other: COBPEER

GOLD STANDARD

NO INTERVENTION

Pairs of systematic reviewers will independently extract data from eligible reports. Reviewers involved in the data extraction will have expertise in the conduct of systematic reviews and will assess the completeness of reporting from the systematic reviewer perspective. They will not have access to the tool to avoid being influenced by the tool. The systematic reviewers will also systematically compare the primary outcome(s) reported in the manuscript and the primary outcome(s) reported in the registry and will document any discrepancies.

Interventions

COBPEER OTHER

At the end of the online training, they can participate in the study and so peer review 1 manuscript randomly selected from our sample with our tool (COBPeer).

COBPeer

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• master students,
• PhD students,
• residents involved in clinical research during their study,
• clinicians who have never reviewed a manuscript

You may not qualify if:

• none

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris: lead
• University of Oxford: collaborator
• University of Ottawa: collaborator
• University of California, Los Angeles: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Hotel Dieu, 1, place du parvis de notre dame

Paris, 75004, France

Location

Related Publications (2)

• Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Moher D, Schriger D, Hopewell S, Shanahan D, Alam S, Baron G, Regnaux JP, Crequit P, Martinez V, Riveros C, Le Cleach L, Recchioni A, Altman DG, Boutron I. Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study. BMC Med. 2019 Nov 19;17(1):205. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0.

  PMID: 31744489 DERIVED

• Chauvin A, Moher D, Altman D, Schriger DL, Alam S, Hopewell S, Shanahan DR, Recchioni A, Ravaud P, Boutron I. A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 15;7(9):e017462. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462.

  PMID: 28918414 DERIVED

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NON RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: April 3, 2017
• First Posted: April 18, 2017
• Study Start: December 10, 2017
• Primary Completion: January 20, 2018
• Study Completion: January 20, 2018
• Last Updated: September 11, 2018

Record last verified: 2018-09

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

FR (1)