Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy–Effectiveness Spectrum: development of a new tool for systematic reviews
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 84, Year 2017
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Background and Objective Randomized trials may be designed to provide evidence more strongly related to efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. When systematic reviews are used to inform clinical or policy decisions, it is important to know the efficacy–effectiveness nature of the included trials. The objective of this study was to develop a tool to characterize randomized trials included in a systematic review on an efficacy–effectiveness continuum. Methods We extracted rating domains and descriptors from existing tools and used a modified Delphi procedure to condense the domains and develop a new tool. The feasibility and interrater reliability of the tool was tested on trials from four systematic reviews. Results The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy–Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool rates clinical trials on a five-point Likert scale in four domains: (1) participant characteristics, (2) trial setting, (3) flexibility of interventions, and (4) clinical relevance of interventions. When RITES was piloted on trials from three reviews by unaffiliated raters, ratings were variable (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.25–0.66 for the four domains); but, when RITES was used on one review by the review authors with expertise on the topic, the ratings were consistent (ICCs > 0.80. Conclusion RITES may help to characterize the efficacy–effectiveness nature of trials included in systematic reviews. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.
Authors & Co-Authors
Wieland, Lisa Susan
United States, Baltimore
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Berman, Brian M.
United States, Baltimore
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Altman, Douglas G.
United Kingdom, Oxford
University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division
Barth, Jürgen
Switzerland, Zurich
Universität Zürich
Bouter, Lex M.
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Amsterdam Umc - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Moher, David
Canada, Ottawa
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Canada, Ottawa
University of Ottawa
Treweek, Shaun P.
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
University of Aberdeen
van der Windt, Daniëlle A.W.M.
United Kingdom, Keele
Keele University
Zwarenstein, Merrick F.
Canada, London
Western University
Statistics
Citations: 21
Authors: 9
Affiliations: 13
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.010
ISSN:
08954356
Research Areas
Health System And Policy
Study Design
Randomised Control Trial
Study Approach
Systematic review