↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
32 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design
Published in
Trials, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0739-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan A. Cook, Andrew Elders, Charles Boachie, Ted Bassinga, Cynthia Fraser, Doug G. Altman, Isabelle Boutron, Craig R. Ramsay, Graeme S. MacLennan

Abstract

Under a conventional two-arm randomised trial design, participants are allocated to an intervention and participating health professionals are expected to deliver both interventions. However, health professionals often have differing levels of expertise in a skill-based interventions such as surgery or psychotherapy. An expertise-based approach to trial design, where health professionals only deliver an intervention in which they have expertise, has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this project was to systematically review the use of an expertise-based trial design in the medical literature. We carried out a comprehensive search of nine databases-AMED, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and PsycINFO-from 1966 to 2012 and performed citation searches using the ISI Citation Indexes and Scopus. Studies that used an expertise-based trial design were included. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports. Data were extracted and summarised on the study characteristics, general and expertise-specific study methodology, and conduct. In total, 7476 titles and abstracts were identified, leading to 43 included studies (54 articles). The vast majority (88 %) used a pure expertise-based design; three (7 %) adopted a hybrid design, and two (5 %) used a design that was unclear. Most studies compared substantially different interventions (79 %). In many cases, key information relating to the expertise-based design was absent; only 12 (28 %) reported criteria for delivering both interventions. Most studies recruited the target sample size or very close to it (median of 101, interquartile range of 94 to 118), although the target was reported for only 40 % of studies. The proportion of participants who received the allocated intervention was high (92 %, interquartile range of 82 to 99 %). While use of an expertise-based trial design is growing, it remains uncommon. Reporting of study methodology and, particularly, expertise-related methodology was poor. Empirical evidence provided some support for purported benefits such as high levels of recruitment and compliance with allocation. An expertise-based trial design should be considered but its value seems context-specific, particularly when interventions differ substantially or interventions are typically delivered by different health professionals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,076,065
of 20,954,095 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#260
of 5,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,701
of 249,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,954,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them