BACKGROUND: The internet is increasingly being used to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Knowledge of the types of interventions evaluated and the methodological quality of these trials could inform decisions about whether to conduct future trials using conventional methods, fully online or a mixture of the two. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the scope of internet-based RCTs for human health condition interventions and evaluate their methodological quality. METHODS: A systematic review of RCTs of any health intervention conducted fully or primarily on the internet was carried out. RESULTS: 23 fully and 27 primarily internet-based RCTs were identified. The first was conducted in 2000. The majority of trials evaluated interventions that involved providing health information to participants, but a few evaluated self-administered interventions (eg, valerian, stretching). Methodological quality was variable and the methods were generally poorly reported. The risk of bias was low in only a small number of trials; most had substantial methodological shortcomings. Only one trial was identified as meeting all criteria for adequate methodological quality. A particular problem was high rates of loss to follow-up (fully online: mean 47%; primarily online: mean 36%). CONCLUSIONS: It is theoretically possible but perhaps difficult to test the effectiveness of health interventions rigorously with RCTs conducted fully or primarily over the internet. The use of the internet to conduct trials is more suited to pragmatic rather than explanatory trials. The main limitation of these trials is that they typically experience high rates of loss to follow-up. Methodological standards now accepted for traditional RCTs needs to be evident for online RCTs as well, especially in reporting of their methods.
BACKGROUND: The internet is increasingly being used to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Knowledge of the types of interventions evaluated and the methodological quality of these trials could inform decisions about whether to conduct future trials using conventional methods, fully online or a mixture of the two. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the scope of internet-based RCTs for human health condition interventions and evaluate their methodological quality. METHODS: A systematic review of RCTs of any health intervention conducted fully or primarily on the internet was carried out. RESULTS: 23 fully and 27 primarily internet-based RCTs were identified. The first was conducted in 2000. The majority of trials evaluated interventions that involved providing health information to participants, but a few evaluated self-administered interventions (eg, valerian, stretching). Methodological quality was variable and the methods were generally poorly reported. The risk of bias was low in only a small number of trials; most had substantial methodological shortcomings. Only one trial was identified as meeting all criteria for adequate methodological quality. A particular problem was high rates of loss to follow-up (fully online: mean 47%; primarily online: mean 36%). CONCLUSIONS: It is theoretically possible but perhaps difficult to test the effectiveness of health interventions rigorously with RCTs conducted fully or primarily over the internet. The use of the internet to conduct trials is more suited to pragmatic rather than explanatory trials. The main limitation of these trials is that they typically experience high rates of loss to follow-up. Methodological standards now accepted for traditional RCTs needs to be evident for online RCTs as well, especially in reporting of their methods.
Authors: Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Elizabeth Murray; Zarnie Khadjesari; Ian R White; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Christine Godfrey; Jim McCambridge; Simon G Thompson; Paul Wallace Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-04-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: H Garth McKay; Brian G Danaher; John R Seeley; Edward Lichtenstein; Jeff M Gau Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew D Oxman; Signe Flottorp; Kari Håvelsrud; Atle Fretheim; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Cheryl Carling; Ståle Pallesen; Bjørn Bjorvatn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amanda L Graham; George D Papandonatos; Caroline O Cobb; Nathan K Cobb; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; David G Tinkelman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Fiona Lobban; Nadia Akers; Duncan Appelbe; Rossella Iraci Capuccinello; Lesley Chapman; Lizzi Collinge; Susanna Dodd; Sue Flowers; Bruce Hollingsworth; Mahsa Honary; Sonia Johnson; Steven H Jones; Ceu Mateus; Barbara Mezes; Elizabeth Murray; Katerina Panagaki; Naomi Rainford; Heather Robinson; Anna Rosala-Hallas; William Sellwood; Andrew Walker; Paula R Williamson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Sheri J Hartman; Shira I Dunsiger; Catherine R Marinac; Bess H Marcus; Rochelle K Rosen; Kim M Gans Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Cheng Wang; Katie R Mollan; Michael G Hudgens; Joseph D Tucker; Heping Zheng; Weiming Tang; Li Ling Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Fiona L Hamilton; Jo Hornby; Jessica Sheringham; Stuart Linke; Charlotte Ashton; Kevin Moore; Fiona Stevenson; Elizabeth Murray Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-06-15