L Susan Wieland1, Brian M Berman2, Douglas G Altman3, Jürgen Barth4, Lex M Bouter5, Christopher R D'Adamo2, Klaus Linde6, David Moher7, C Daniel Mullins8, Shaun Treweek9, Sean Tunis10, Danielle A van der Windt11, Merrick Zwarenstein12, Claudia Witt13. 1. Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 West Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Electronic address: swieland@som.umaryland.edu. 2. Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 West Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. 3. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. 4. Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, Zürich CH-8091, Switzerland. 5. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007 MB, The Netherlands; Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands. 6. Institute of General Practice, University Hospital rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Orleansstrasse 47, Munich 81667, Germany. 7. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 725 Parkdale Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada; School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa ON K1H 8M5, Canada. 8. Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, 20 North Pine Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. 9. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK. 10. Center for Medical Technology Policy, World Trade Center Institute, 401 E Pratt St # 631, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA. 11. Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Primary Care Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK. 12. Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada. 13. Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 West Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA; Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, Zürich CH-8091, Switzerland; Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Luisenstr. 57, Berlin 10117, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials may be designed to provide evidence more strongly related to efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. When systematic reviews are used to inform clinical or policy decisions, it is important to know the efficacy-effectiveness nature of the included trials. The objective of this study was to develop a tool to characterize randomized trials included in a systematic review on an efficacy-effectiveness continuum. METHODS: We extracted rating domains and descriptors from existing tools and used a modified Delphi procedure to condense the domains and develop a new tool. The feasibility and interrater reliability of the tool was tested on trials from four systematic reviews. RESULTS: The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool rates clinical trials on a five-point Likert scale in four domains: (1) participant characteristics, (2) trial setting, (3) flexibility of interventions, and (4) clinical relevance of interventions. When RITES was piloted on trials from three reviews by unaffiliated raters, ratings were variable (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.25-0.66 for the four domains); but, when RITES was used on one review by the review authors with expertise on the topic, the ratings were consistent (ICCs > 0.80. CONCLUSION: RITES may help to characterize the efficacy-effectiveness nature of trials included in systematic reviews.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials may be designed to provide evidence more strongly related to efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. When systematic reviews are used to inform clinical or policy decisions, it is important to know the efficacy-effectiveness nature of the included trials. The objective of this study was to develop a tool to characterize randomized trials included in a systematic review on an efficacy-effectiveness continuum. METHODS: We extracted rating domains and descriptors from existing tools and used a modified Delphi procedure to condense the domains and develop a new tool. The feasibility and interrater reliability of the tool was tested on trials from four systematic reviews. RESULTS: The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool rates clinical trials on a five-point Likert scale in four domains: (1) participant characteristics, (2) trial setting, (3) flexibility of interventions, and (4) clinical relevance of interventions. When RITES was piloted on trials from three reviews by unaffiliated raters, ratings were variable (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.25-0.66 for the four domains); but, when RITES was used on one review by the review authors with expertise on the topic, the ratings were consistent (ICCs > 0.80. CONCLUSION: RITES may help to characterize the efficacy-effectiveness nature of trials included in systematic reviews.
Authors: Gerald Gartlehner; Richard A Hansen; Daniel Nissman; Kathleen N Lohr; Timothy S Carey Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
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: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.437
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: Russell E Glasgow; Bridget Gaglio; Gary Bennett; Gerald J Jerome; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; David B Sarwer; Lawrence Appel; Graham Colditz; Thomas A Wadden; Barbara Wells Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Eric Manheimer; Ke Cheng; Klaus Linde; Lixing Lao; Junghee Yoo; Susan Wieland; Daniëlle Awm van der Windt; Brian M Berman; Lex M Bouter Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-01-20
Authors: Claudia M Witt; Daniel Pach; Jiani Wang; Alizé A Rogge; Mike Armour; Caroline A Smith; Christopher R D'Adamo; Claudia R Pischke; Hung-Rong Yen; Mei-Yao Wu; Ari Ojeda Ocampo Moré Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Samantha Nordlund; Patrick George McPhee; Ramy Gabarin; Charlotte Deacon; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Katherine Mary Morrison Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Eileen Fs Kaner; Fiona R Beyer; Colin Muirhead; Fiona Campbell; Elizabeth D Pienaar; Nicolas Bertholet; Jean B Daeppen; John B Saunders; Bernard Burnand Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-02-24
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Dominik Mertz; Daeria O Lawson; Marek Smieja; Anita C Benoit; Elizabeth Alvarez; Lisa Puchalski Ritchie; Beth Rachlis; Carmen Logie; Winston Husbands; Shari Margolese; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 2.692