Clinical Decision-makingRANKNCT03283592
Review and Assessment of Network Meta-analyses for Knowledge Uptake Study
A study testing Rank-Heat Plot and SUCRA Plot in people with Clinical Decision-making, run by Unity Health Toronto.
Trial summary
This randomized controlled trial will assess the interpretability of the rank-heat plot for presenting the results of network meta-analysis in comparison to SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) plots which are suggested to present one of the best ranking statistics. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Clinical Decision-making
- What is being tested?
- Rank-Heat Plot and SUCRA Plot
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jul 2019to Jan 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Clinicians must be accredited to practice in Canada and working (full- or part-time) as a family physician or general internist.
Who cannot join
- Unable to read and understand English;
- No access to the internet;
- Read, co-authored or peer-reviewed the study: "Quality Improvement strategies to Prevent Falls in the Elderly: A systematic review and network meta-analysis" (manuscript in preparation).
About this study
Official title: Review and Assessment of Network Meta-analyses for Knowledge Uptake (RANK) Study
This randomized controlled trial will assess the interpretability of the rank-heat plot for presenting the results of network meta-analysis in comparison to SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) plots which are suggested to present one of the best ranking statistics.
Read the detailed description
Clinicians are responsible for making decisions to improve health outcomes. When available, clinicians should use the results of a knowledge synthesis, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to inform decision-making. Pairwise meta-analyses are limited, however, by the availability of RCTs that directly compare interventions. This is troublesome for knowledge users who require results from comparisons of multiple interventions to inform decision-making. To address this concern, the use of network meta-analyses (NMAs) is increasing in healthcare the literature. NMAs are a useful tool because they can summarize results from numerous studies and interventions. It is unclear how NMA results should be presented to increase the likelihood of clinicians understanding and using the results to improve health outcomes. Thus, a randomized controlled trial of NMA plots will be conducted. Participants will be randomized to either the rank-heat plot (intervention) or SUCRA plots (control) that present the same NMA results of a study that explored the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for falls prevention. Outcomes will be ascertained via an online survey. The RCT will take place in an online environment and will require each participant to partake in a single session. This study will help guide best practices for the presentation of reviews to improve the uptake and use of NMA.
- Conditions
- Clinical Decision-making
- Being tested
- Rank-Heat Plot, SUCRA Plot
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Rank-Heat PlotOther
provides a visual presentation of treatment hierarchy across multiple outcomes
SUCRA PlotOther
provides a visual presentation of treatment ranking for a single outcome.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Rank-Heat Plot | Experimental | The intervention group will receive an online survey to evaluate their interpretation of the results from the NMA with a rank-heat plot including results from 2 outcomes that were selected by our knowledge users (#injurious falls, #fractures). Receives: Other: Rank-Heat Plot |
| SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) Plot | Active comparator | The control group will receive an online survey to evaluate their interpretation of the results from the NMA with the SUCRA plots including results from the same 2 outcomes that will be presented to the intervention group (i.e., #injurious falls, #fractures). Receives: Other: SUCRA Plot |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Proportion of participants who appropriately define the clinical "bottom line." Participants' answers will be independently evaluated by two investigators for agreement with an expert panel's recommendation.
Measured: during experiment via single session, <1 hour survey
Secondary outcomes (3)
Proportion of participants who accurately apply the evidence to the provided clinical scenario.
Measured: during experiment via single session, <1 hour survey
Completeness of survey data evaluated by two independent investigators
Measured: Immediate post-experiment
Time taken to complete survey
Measured: Immediate post-experiment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Sep 2017
- Study startJul 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completionJan 2021 (estimated)
- Study completionJan 2021 (estimated)
Why it stopped: did not receive funding to conduct study
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Clinical Decision-makingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Unity Health TorontoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- 2-arm, parallel assignment
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Unity Health Toronto
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03283592
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 17-0107
- Acronym
- RANK
- Status last verified
- Apr 2019
- First submitted
- 11 Sep 2017
- Last updated
- 4 Apr 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Apr 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Review and Assessment of Network Meta-analyses for Knowledge Uptake (RANK) Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03283592
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RANK / 17-0107
- Conditions
- Clinical Decision-making
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: did not receive funding to conduct study
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Unity Health TorontoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jul 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Jan 2021 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jan 2021 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Sep 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomized controlled trial will assess the interpretability of the rank-heat plot for presenting the results of network meta-analysis in comparison to SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) plots which are suggested to present one of the best ranking statistics.
Detailed description
Clinicians are responsible for making decisions to improve health outcomes. When available, clinicians should use the results of a knowledge synthesis, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to inform decision-making. Pairwise meta-analyses are limited, however, by the availability of RCTs that directly compare interventions. This is troublesome for knowledge users who require results from comparisons of multiple interventions to inform decision-making. To address this concern, the use of network meta-analyses (NMAs) is increasing in healthcare the literature. NMAs are a useful tool because they can summarize results from numerous studies and interventions. It is unclear how NMA results should be presented to increase the likelihood of clinicians understanding and using the results to improve health outcomes. Thus, a randomized controlled trial of NMA plots will be conducted. Participants will be randomized to either the rank-heat plot (intervention) or SUCRA plots (control) that present the same NMA results of a study that explored the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for falls prevention. Outcomes will be ascertained via an online survey. The RCT will take place in an online environment and will require each participant to partake in a single session. This study will help guide best practices for the presentation of reviews to improve the uptake and use of NMA.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- 2-arm, parallel assignment
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Rank-Heat Plot | Experimental | Other: Rank-Heat PlotThe intervention group will receive an online survey to evaluate their interpretation of the results from the NMA with a rank-heat plot including results from 2 outcomes that were selected by our knowledge users (#injurious falls, #fractures). |
| SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) Plot | Active comparator | Other: SUCRA PlotThe control group will receive an online survey to evaluate their interpretation of the results from the NMA with the SUCRA plots including results from the same 2 outcomes that will be presented to the intervention group (i.e., #injurious falls, #fractures). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Clinicians must be accredited to practice in Canada and working (full- or part-time) as a family physician or general internist.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Unable to read and understand English;
- No access to the internet;
- Read, co-authored or peer-reviewed the study: "Quality Improvement strategies to Prevent Falls in the Elderly: A systematic review and network meta-analysis" (manuscript in preparation).
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Rank-Heat Plotprovides a visual presentation of treatment hierarchy across multiple outcomes | Other | Rank-Heat Plot |
| SUCRA Plotprovides a visual presentation of treatment ranking for a single outcome. | Other | SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) Plot |
Primary outcome
Proportion of participants who appropriately define the clinical "bottom line." Participants' answers will be independently evaluated by two investigators for agreement with an expert panel's recommendation.
Time frame: during experiment via single session, <1 hour survey
3 secondary outcomes
Proportion of participants who accurately apply the evidence to the provided clinical scenario.
Time frame: during experiment via single session, <1 hour survey
Completeness of survey data evaluated by two independent investigators
Time frame: Immediate post-experiment
Time taken to complete survey
Time frame: Immediate post-experiment
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Apr 2019.
Related trials for Clinical Decision-making
RecruitingObservational study
The Decision To Enroll In Therapeutic Clinical Trials In A Pediatric Cancer Clinical Network
Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Recruiting
GenAI-Assisted Rheumatoid Arthritis Bone Erosion Risk Assessment and DMARD Selection
Rheumatoid Arthritis
RecruitingPhase 2
Circulating Tumor DNA Methylation-Guided Adjuvant Therapy Decision-Making in Patients With Resectable Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases After Resection
Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases (CRLM), ctDNA
RecruitingObservational study
A Study for the PanCystPro Assay in the Management of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions
Pancreatic Cystic Lesions
Not yet recruitingObservational study
PAtient Similarity for Decision-Making in Prevention of Cardiovascular Toxicity (PACT): A Feasibility Study
Heart Failure, Coronary Artery Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Rank-Heat Plot and SUCRA Plot in people with Clinical Decision-making, run by Unity Health Toronto.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Apr 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Proportion of participants who appropriately define the clinical "bottom line." Participants' answers will be independently evaluated by two investigators for agreement with an expert panel's recommendation. (time frame: during experiment via single session, <1 hour survey). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Apr 2019.