Search

Introduction: Registration and publication of trial protocols has become increasingly important and a requirement in some sources of funding and publication. Increased access to protocols yields many potential benefits, but there are issues regarding identification of published protocols. The aim of this investigation is to compare methods of retrieval for identifying trial protocols in a systematic review. Methods: Six stages of searching (checking published trial reports, searching journal Web sites, Internet searching, trial registers, bibliographic databases, and contact with authors) were completed to identify 74 trial protocols. Results: Fifty-seven percent of the trial protocols were identified upon completion of all 6 stages of searching. The most comprehensive method was searching trial registers that identified 51% of the protocols. Contact with authors was most effective at uniquely identifying protocols; 12% were retrieved via this single method. Contact with authors was the only effective method of identifying protocols for trials pre-2005. Discussion: When attempting to identify trial protocols to include in systematic reviews, some methods are relatively quick to undertake but deliver a low yield. The most effective search strategy for most sources was retrieval by trial registration number where available. Conclusions: For protocols of trial results published pre-2005, review authors should contact authors as a priority. For protocols post-2005, they should check the trial publication for protocol details, search trial registers, and contact authors, ceasing searching once a predetermined point of diminishing returns has been reached.

Abstract Background Personal statements and referees' reports are widely used on medical school application forms, particularly in the UK, to assess the suitability of candidates for a career in medicine. However there are few studies which assess the validity of such information for predicting unhappiness or dissatisfaction with a career in medicine. Here we combine data from a long-term prospective study of medical student selection and training, with an experimental approach in which a large number of assessors used a paired comparison technique to predict outcome. Methods Data from a large-scale prospective study of students applying to UK medical schools in 1990 were used to identify 40 pairs of doctors, matched by sex, for whom personal statements and referees' reports were available, and who in a 2002/3 follow-up study, one pair member was very satisfied and the other very dissatisfied with medicine as a career. In 2005, 96 assessors, who were experienced medical school selectors, doctors, medical students or psychology students, used information from the doctors' original applications to judge which member of each pair of doctors was the happier, more satisfied doctor. Results None of the groups of assessors were significantly different from chance expectations in using applicants' personal statements and the referees' reports to predict actual future satisfaction or dissatisfaction, the distribution being similar to binomial expectations. However judgements of pairs of application forms from pairs of doctors showed a non-binomial distribution, indicating consensus among assessors as to which doctor would be the happy doctor (although the consensus was wrong in half the cases). Assessors taking longer to do the task concurred more. Consensus judgements seem mainly to be based on referees' predictions of academic achievement (even though academic achievement is not actually a valid predictor of happiness or satisfaction). Conclusion Although widely used in medical student selection to assess motivation, interest and commitment to a medical career, the personal statement and the referee's report cannot validly be used by assessors, including experienced medical school selectors, to identify doctors who will subsequently be dissatisfied with a medical career.

Introduction: Registration and publication of trial protocols has become increasingly important and a requirement in some sources of funding and publication. Increased access to protocols yields many potential benefits, but there are issues regarding identification of published protocols. The aim of this investigation is to compare methods of retrieval for identifying trial protocols in a systematic review. Methods: Six stages of searching (checking published trial reports, searching journal Web sites, Internet searching, trial registers, bibliographic databases, and contact with authors) were completed to identify 74 trial protocols. Results: Fifty‐seven percent of the trial protocols were identified upon completion of all 6 stages of searching. The most comprehensive method was searching trial registers that identified 51% of the protocols. Contact with authors was most effective at uniquely identifying protocols; 12% were retrieved via this single method. Contact with authors was the only effective method of identifying protocols for trials pre‐2005. Discussion When attempting to identify trial protocols to include in systematic reviews, some methods are relatively quick to undertake but deliver a low yield. The most effective search strategy for most sources was retrieval by trial registration number where available. Conclusions: For protocols of trial results published pre‐2005, review authors should contact authors as a priority. For protocols post‐2005, they should check the trial publication for protocol details, search trial registers, and contact authors, ceasing searching once a predetermined point of diminishing returns has been reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions are conducted in a context-specific environment. Principal trial reports, with a focus on main results, are unable to document adequately the context for an intervention, for example, word limits. Important context may be included in “sibling studies” (that is, studies conducted alongside the main trial, for example, process evaluations, and qualitative studies (1). This presentation explores (i) to what extent is it possible to use a systematic and parsimonious method to identify sibling studies and (ii) what is the potential value of yield from these studies?METHODS:The systematic CLUSTER approach (2) to follow up of index studies (Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Scholar, Theories, Early examples Related projects) has demonstrated the value of retrieved items in qualitative terms. However, the CLUSTER approach is painstaking and laborious and may be prohibitive within a time-tight Health Technology Assessment (HTA). A streamlined CLUSTER approach, using freely available Publish or Perish Software integrated with Google Scholar and Microsoft Excel, offers an economical way of building up “clusters” of study reports. A case study of a UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded HTA on the management of medically unexplained symptoms in primary care, utilizing quantitative and qualitative research studies, is used to examine the practical application of the approach.RESULTS:Systematic comparison of yield from sifting with yield from the Publish or Perish software reveals (i) major trials for which corresponding qualitative studies were not previously identified, (ii) qualitative studies identified independently from, and potentially unlinked to, associated trials, (iii) associated trial reports (for example, protocols, feasibility studies, etc), economic evaluations and systematic reviews, and (iv) commentaries and correspondence; all with the potential to enhance understanding of trial context.CONCLUSIONS:The potential of the Publish or Perish-enabled CLUSTER approach to identify trials or qualitative studies, through “joining up” and mapping of clusters, potentially missed from separate quantitative/qualitative sift processes, means that it should be considered for any HTA that seeks to integrate quantitative and qualitative studies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

INTRODUCTION:Registration of trial protocols has become increasingly important in recent years. In the context of systematic reviews, published trial protocols facilitate the identification of studies. Data recorded in trials registers requires standardization to assist with ease of identification, and availability of the most current protocol version. Searching sources of trial protocols, for example trials registers, has issues relating to currency, coverage, functionality and indexing. An empirical study was conducted in the context of a funded systematic review, to establish; the proportion of trial protocols retrievable, the most effective retrieval methods, barriers to retrieving protocols, and whether the most easily retrieved protocol copy remains the document of record.METHODS:In a systematic review of primary care interventions for medically unexplained symptoms, seventy-four trials were identified as potential included studies. To search for the seventy-four trial protocols, multiple sources and methods were utilized to identify the the differential coverage of sources and the relative efficiency of retrieval methods. Retrieval methods included searching trials registers and bibliographic databases, internet searching, checking journal websites and contacting authors.RESULTS:Results included; (i) number of trial protocols that were referenced in the corresponding study publication(s), (ii) percentage of protocols indexed in each checked source, including MEDLINE and various trials registers, (iii) number of authors that responded to email contact, (iv) number of authors that provided a reference to, or copy of, the protocol. Information on when the trial protocol was published, funding sources, and trial registration, was also recorded.CONCLUSIONS:Conclusions are made regarding the coverage of different sources of trial protocols. This will enable Information Specialists to prioritize retrieval methods for identifying trial protocols to inform future search methods guidance. The main barriers to retrieving protocols are discussed together with recommendations for future empirical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]