Condition category
Not Applicable
Date applied
25/03/2015
Date assigned
17/04/2015
Last edited
15/04/2015
Prospective/Retrospective
Retrospectively registered
Overall trial status
Completed
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting

Plain English Summary

Background and study aims
Research evidence can inform decision makers about how to make changes and how to organise, finance, and govern health systems. Systematic reviews are synthesized evidence (evidence made up from a number of original primary sources) that have the potential to save time, and to prevent selective use of less comprehensive and reliable evidence from individual primary studies. Despite the steady increase of synthesized evidence made available from a number of resources, many decision makers lack familiarity with, and awareness of synthesized evidence. The Cochrane Library, EVIPNet, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed, PDQ-Evidence and Trip, all provide access to synthesized evidence. However, the comprehensiveness and ease of use vary across these resources, which can be a potential obstacle to the use of synthesized evidence. To meet this challenge, PDQ-Evidence, a freely available single source, aims to give rapid and easy access to the best available systematic reviews for decisions about health systems. The aim of this study is to investigate how comprehensive, quick and easy to use PDQ-Evidence is compared to the Cochrane Library, EVIPNet, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed, or Trip database.

Who can participate?
Healthcare policy makers, health managers, health researchers and health professionals.

What does the study involve?
Participants search three databases, PDQ-Evidence and two of the following databases: Cochrane Library, EVIPNet, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed, or Trip database. They are asked to spend no more than 10 minutes using each database. Participants are asked to search for answers to two health systems questions in all three databases, one predefined question and one of their own choice. The outcomes of most interest are whether one or more relevant systematic reviews are found, and if so, the time it takes to find them. We use SurveyGizmo to distribute the evaluation forms and collect data. We are also inviting two information specialists to do a content analysis of PDQ-Evidence, comparing the content of PDQ-Evidence to the content of the six other databases. Both search all seven databases for ten predefined health systems questions. The outcomes of most interest for each question in each database are whether relevant systematic reviews are found, and if so, how many.

What are the possible benefits and risks of participating?
This is an opportunity for participants to try out PDQ-Evidence and to compare it to other sources of health systems evidence. They might learn something. Participants might be frustrated or might feel that they wasted their time.

Where is the study run from?
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo (Norway)

When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for?
November 2014 to August 2017

Who is funding the study?
The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (Norway) and the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (Belgium).

Who is the main contact?
Dr Andrew David Oxman

Trial website

Contact information

Type

Public

Primary contact

Dr Andrew David Oxman

ORCID ID

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5608-5061

Contact details

PO Box 7004 St. Olavs plass
Oslo
N-0130
Norway

Type

Scientific

Additional contact

Dr Andrew David Oxman

ORCID ID

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5608-5061

Contact details

PO Box 7004 St. Olavs plass
Oslo
N-0130
Norway

Additional identifiers

EudraCT number

ClinicalTrials.gov number

Protocol/serial number

N/A

Study information

Scientific title

A comparative evaluation of the PDQ-Evidence database: a crossover randomised controlled trial

Acronym

Study hypothesis

When searching for systematic reviews about health systems, PDQ-Evidence is more comprehensive, easier and quicker to use compared to the Cochrane Library, EVIPNet, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed, or Trip database.

Ethics approval

Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, section South-East B, Oslo, Norway, 20/05/2014, ref: IRB 0000 1870

Study design

Interventional. Crossover RCT. Single-centre.

Primary study design

Interventional

Secondary study design

Randomised controlled trial

Trial setting

Internet

Trial type

Other

Patient information sheet

Condition

Access to systematic reviews about health systems

Intervention

Searching for systematic reviews about health systems using PDQ-Evidence and two of the following databases/search engines: Cochrane Library, EVIPNet, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed, Trip database. Participants were randomised to either search PDQ-Evidence first or last.

Intervention type

Other

Phase

Drug names

Primary outcome measures

1. Was a systematic review that addresses the question found (Yes/No)? For the comparison databases (the two databases selected by the participants) this outcome will be defined as: “Was a systematic review that addresses the question found in either of the two databases?”
2. Time taken to find a systematic review that addresses the question

Method: self reporting
Time: measured once

Secondary outcome measures

1. Number of relevant systematic reviews found
2. Assessments of the databases with four response options:
2.1. Ease of use (from very difficult to very easy)
2.2. Time spent on searching (from much too much time to very little time)

Method: self reporting
Time: measured once

Overall trial start date

01/11/2013

Overall trial end date

17/02/2015

Reason abandoned

Eligibility

Participant inclusion criteria

1. Healthcare policy makers
2. Health managers
3. Health researchers
4. Health professionals

Participant type

Mixed

Age group

Adult

Gender

Both

Target number of participants

94

Participant exclusion criteria

1. Not healthcare policy makers
2. Not health managers
3. Not health researchers
4. Not health professionals

Recruitment start date

03/11/2014

Recruitment end date

17/02/2015

Locations

Countries of recruitment

Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Malawi, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America

Trial participating centre

Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
PO Box 7004 St. Olavs plass
Oslo
N-0130
Norway

Sponsor information

Organisation

Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services

Sponsor details

PO Box 7004 St. Olavs plass
Oslo
N-0130
Norway
+47 23 25 50 00
post@nokc.no

Sponsor type

Government

Website

http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/

Funders

Funder type

Government

Funder name

Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (Norway)

Alternative name(s)

Funding Body Type

Funding Body Subtype

Location

Funder name

Seventh Framework Programme

Alternative name(s)

EC Seventh Framework Programme, European Commission Seventh Framework Programme, EU Seventh Framework Programme, European Union Seventh Framework Programme, FP7

Funding Body Type

government organisation

Funding Body Subtype

Federal/National Government

Location

Belgium

Results and Publications

Publication and dissemination plan

Journal article

Intention to publish date

31/12/2015

Participant level data

Available on request

Results - basic reporting

Publication summary

Publication citations

Additional files

Editorial Notes