↓ Skip to main content

Publishing protocols for trials of complex interventions before trial completion – potential pitfalls, solutions and the need for public debate

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
72 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Publishing protocols for trials of complex interventions before trial completion – potential pitfalls, solutions and the need for public debate
Published in
Trials, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1757-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Purna Basu, Janice Elizabeth Pearse, Tim Rapley

Abstract

Open Science is 'the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society'. In the spirit of the Open Science movement, advance publication of protocols for clinical trials is now being advocated by BioMed Central, BMJ Open and others. Simultaneously, participants are becoming increasingly active in their pursuit and sharing of trial- and health- related information. Whilst access to protocols alongside published trial findings has clear benefits, advance publication of trial protocols is potentially problematic for trials of complex behavioural interventions. In this article we explain, with examples, how this could lead to unblinding, 'contamination' between intervention and control groups and deliberate biasing of assessment outcomes by participants. We discuss potential solutions and demonstrate the need for public debate about how this issue is best managed. Triallists may still be underestimating participants' interest in information. This needs to change: joint and open discussions with the public are needed to inform how we should proceed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 27%
Computer Science 5 12%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 13 32%