An exploratory analysis for identifying factors associated with the primary care physicians' interpretation of the rigor of overstated abstract conclusions
Not Applicable
- Conditions
- The original eligible criteria were volunteers among medical doctors of Japan Primary Care Associationclinical experience of 2 years or morecurrently in clinical practicehaving chance to get information on new clinical research/trials.
- Registration Number
- JPRN-UMIN000026269
- Lead Sponsor
- Kyoto University
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- Complete: follow-up complete
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 286
Inclusion Criteria
Not provided
Exclusion Criteria
Mainly working at an educational or a research institution
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Observational
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Our primary outcome was rating the overstate abstract conclusion as "rigor". The definition of the primary outcome is based on rating 5 or more against the question "How likely do you think this conclusion is rigor (0-10)?"
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method We will conduct the following secondary analysis to confirm if the factors associated with rigor rating in the primary analysis are dependent on the existence of overstatement. We will add the factors to interaction terms in the model and check the interaction between the factors and overstatement, using the full analysis set of the DOCTOR study