IncentiveSupMatQTNCT02961036
The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles QT
A study testing Group 1 information, Group 2 information and Group 3 information in people with Incentive, run by ThinkWell at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Questionnaires are frequently used in online research, however recruiting, and completion rates of online participants from a variety of cultures and demographic backgrounds can be challenging. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Incentive
- What is being tested?
- Group 1 information, Group 2 information and Group 3 information
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 2,872 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 15 Nov 2016to 25 Feb 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Part of SupMat Research
- Corresponding authors of BMJ Group full-length original research submissions in 2013
- BMJ Group Reviewers who completed a review of a manuscript for "original research", "research" or "paper" in 2014.
- BMJ authors, reviewers, and reviewers with a viable email address
Who cannot join
- Not Part of SupMat Research
- Potential participants who have opted out of BMJ communications
- Participants in BMJ surveys within the last 6 months
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles Surveys of Authors, Reviewers and Readers Questionnaire Trial
Questionnaires are frequently used in online research, however recruiting, and completion rates of online participants from a variety of cultures and demographic backgrounds can be challenging. The challenge is greater in an online cohort because there is no way to observe the participant beyond what is contributed online. Poor recruiting and completion can result in underpowered research that may not be representative of the sample population. This can trigger an increase in costs as the recruitment period may have to be extended until sample size is reached. When recruiting and completion rates are inadequate studies may have to be terminated and the answer to the research question can remain unknown.
To mitigate these challenges, incentives may be offered in the form of gift certificate draws. There is uncertainty about whether this strategy is effective in online research and if the value of the incentive alters the outcome. A randomised trial can be used to test the intervention to establish an evidence base.
Read more
This study (SupMatQT) proposes to link with a large 20,000 person international cohort study (SupMat) that will test the utility and preferences of journal supplementary materials for reviewers, authors,and readers. The research described here will examine the evidence of effect for offering a prize draw incentive on rates of recruitment, and completion for consented participants. All participants will be entered in the draw. Information about the value of the incentive of a prize draw will differ according to what group a participant is randomized to. The entry in the prize draw will not be conditional on levels of participation or group allocation.
The other question researchers will address is what effect do survey reminders have on outcomes? All non-responders will be sent an initial reminder to complete the survey (Group A) and for those who have still not responded a second reminder will be sent 14 days later (Group B). Outcomes will be compared at three time points: for initial response, following reminder 1(Group A), and following reminder 2 (Group B).
Read the detailed description
The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles is a research collaboration between the BMJ, University of Oxford, and Queen's University Belfast where the research team aims to explore the usage patterns of supplementary materials for journal articles by authors, peer reviewers, and readers and to compare authors, peer reviewers and readers responses to these materials. The large cohort provides a unique opportunity to conduct methodology research with online participants using a nested cohort study defined as a study within a trial (SWAT). The nested study "The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles Questionnaire Study " will explore the effects of recruitment and survey completion when a prize draw for participants is included in the invitation letter.
Large research populations can struggle to recruit participants and to obtain complete data. This can have a direct effect on the robustness of the findings and can undermine the often substantial investment, participants, researchers, and sponsors have made in the research. This research waste may undermine public trust and community enthusiasm for the research process. It may seem logical to offer a prize-winning draw as an incentive but only a trial can give objective information about how well this intervention works. It is cost effective to embed this research at the beginning of an existing large cohort study as funding may not be available to test the intervention as a stand alone question. The additional question of interest addressed will be asking whether one survey reminder or two is more effective in terms of recruitment and survey completion rates. The question is practical as ineffective reminders use researcher resources, increase the burden of participation on the participant and could build resentment if the respondent feels "spammed" whereas the ideal balance of reminders will result in increased recruitment and survey completion rates.
Participants in this cohort are drawn from a convenience sample of BMJ Publishing Group's journals that have a spread of Impact Factors, including the BMJ. Included journals have a website and publish supplementary material.
Devoting time and resources to understand what strategies will mobilize participants to remain motivated to join a study and complete the conditions is good planning and contributes to robust methods that other researchers can replicate. To the investigators' knowledge, no similar work has been conducted solely within the online population of readers, peer reviewers and authors of an academic journal group.
The aims of the study are to test the effect of:
- Being told you will be entered into a prize draw versus not being told on survey recruitment and completion rates across three surveys (authors, readers, reviewers)
- Entering participants into a prize draw with different values of monetary incentives on survey recruitment and completion rates across three surveys (authors, readers, reviewers)
- Sending two survey reminders to each of these incentive groups on survey recruitment and completion rates across three surveys (authors, readers, reviewers)
The research question(s) this research explores is, what effect does the knowledge of being entered into a prize draw have on the rates of recruitment and completion in the study and does varying the value of the incentive influence the outcomes. The study will describe how or if these rates differ between authors, reviewers, and readers. The second question is how does one v two reminders influence recruitment and completion rates.
Participants (authors, reviewers ,and readers) will be invited to take part in the study and will be randomized into one of five trial arms:
All potential participants who are non-responders will receive one reminder to complete the survey (Group A), For those who are still non-responders the initial reminder will be followed by an additional reminder 14 days later (Group B)
Group one will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 100% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group two will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 75% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group three will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 50% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group four will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 25% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group five will not receive any information about the prize draw for an Amazon gift certificate in the invitation letter.
- Conditions
- Incentive
- Being tested
- Group 1 information, Group 2 information, Group 3 information, Group 4 information, Group 5 no information
- Keywords
- Surveys and Questionnaires
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Group 1 informationOther
Group 1 prize draw information for participants to win 100% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter.
Group 2 informationOther
Group 2 prize draw information for participants to win 75% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter.
Group 3 informationOther
Group 3 prize draw information for participants to win 50% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter.
Group 4 informationOther
Group 4 prize draw information for participants to win 25% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter.
Group 5 no informationOther
Group 5 no Information for participants to enter a draw to win an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter.
Group A ReminderOther
One survey reminder at 14 days
Group B RemindersOther
Two survey reminders one at 14 days and one at 28 days
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 Information | Experimental | Group 1 Information about the prize draw incentive for 100% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. Receives: Other: Group 1 information |
| Group 2 Information | Active comparator | Group 2 Information about the prize draw incentive for 75% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. Receives: Other: Group 2 information |
| Group 3 Information | Active comparator | Group 3 Information about the prize draw incentive for 50% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. Receives: Other: Group 3 information |
| Group 4 Information | Active comparator | Group 4 Information about the prize draw incentive for 25% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. Receives: Other: Group 4 information |
| Group 5 No Information | Active comparator | Group 5 No Information incentive for an Amazon gift certificate (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. Receives: Other: Group 5 no information |
| Group A reminder | Experimental | One survey reminder at 14 days Receives: Other: Group A Reminder |
| Group B reminders | Active comparator | Two survey reminders 14 days and 28 days Receives: Other: Group B Reminders |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Completion
proportion of questions completed in the questionnaire
Measured: Duration of study up to 60 days
Secondary outcomes (1)
Recruitment
proportion of sample recruited
- Secondary Outcome Measure: proportion of sample recruited Comparison of recruitment numbers between Groups one through five and Groups A and B
Measured: Duration of study up to 60 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Nov 2016 (estimated)
- Study start15 Nov 2016
- Primary completion15 Feb 2017
- Study completion25 Feb 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for IncentiveStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 2,872 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- ThinkWell
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The BMJ, University of Oxford, Queen's University, Belfast
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Mike Clarke, PhD, Principal investigator, Queens University Belfast
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02961036
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ThinkWell
- Acronym
- SupMatQT
- Status last verified
- Mar 2021
- First submitted
- 5 Nov 2016
- Last updated
- 22 Mar 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Data will be shared in aggregated form upon request in order to comply with data protection policies
Publications
Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Oct;50(10):1129-36. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00126-1.
PubMed 9368521Kenyon J, Sprague N, Flathers E. The Journal Article as a Means to Share Data: a Content Analysis of Supplementary Materials from Two Disciplines. J Librarianship Scholarly Community 2016;4:eP2112. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.2112
Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relations 2008;61:1139-60. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863
Cobanoglu C. The effect of incentives in web surveys : application and ethical considerations. Int J Mark Res 2003;45:475-88.
Beebe L. Supplemental materials for journal articles: NISO/NFAIS working group. Information Standards Quarterly 2010;22:33-7. doi:10 .3789/isqv22n3.2010.07
Education section - Studies Within A Trial (SWAT). J Evid Based Med. 2012 Feb;5(1):44-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2012.01169.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 23528122Price A, Schroter S, Clarke M, McAneney H. Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers. BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 24;8(9):e021753. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753.
PubMed 30249629
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Mar 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles Surveys of Authors, Reviewers and Readers Questionnaire Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02961036
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SupMatQT / ThinkWell
- Conditions
- Incentive
- Keywords
- Surveys and Questionnaires
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 2,872 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- ThinkWellUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The BMJ, University of Oxford, Queen's University, Belfast
- Study start
- 15 Nov 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Feb 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 25 Feb 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Nov 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Questionnaires are frequently used in online research, however recruiting, and completion rates of online participants from a variety of cultures and demographic backgrounds can be challenging. The challenge is greater in an online cohort because there is no way to observe the participant beyond what is contributed online. Poor recruiting and completion can result in underpowered research that may not be representative of the sample population. This can trigger an increase in costs as the recruitment period may have to be extended until sample size is reached. When recruiting and completion rates are inadequate studies may have to be terminated and the answer to the research question can remain unknown.
To mitigate these challenges, incentives may be offered in the form of gift certificate draws. There is uncertainty about whether this strategy is effective in online research and if the value of the incentive alters the outcome. A randomised trial can be used to test the intervention to establish an evidence base.
This study (SupMatQT) proposes to link with a large 20,000 person international cohort study (SupMat) that will test the utility and preferences of journal supplementary materials for reviewers, authors,and readers. The research described here will examine the evidence of effect for offering a prize draw incentive on rates of recruitment, and completion for consented participants. All participants will be entered in the draw. Information about the value of the incentive of a prize draw will differ according to what group a participant is randomized to. The entry in the prize draw will not be conditional on levels of participation or group allocation.
The other question researchers will address is what effect do survey reminders have on outcomes? All non-responders will be sent an initial reminder to complete the survey (Group A) and for those who have still not responded a second reminder will be sent 14 days later (Group B). Outcomes will be compared at three time points: for initial response, following reminder 1(Group A), and following reminder 2 (Group B).
Detailed description
The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles is a research collaboration between the BMJ, University of Oxford, and Queen's University Belfast where the research team aims to explore the usage patterns of supplementary materials for journal articles by authors, peer reviewers, and readers and to compare authors, peer reviewers and readers responses to these materials. The large cohort provides a unique opportunity to conduct methodology research with online participants using a nested cohort study defined as a study within a trial (SWAT). The nested study "The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles Questionnaire Study " will explore the effects of recruitment and survey completion when a prize draw for participants is included in the invitation letter.
Large research populations can struggle to recruit participants and to obtain complete data. This can have a direct effect on the robustness of the findings and can undermine the often substantial investment, participants, researchers, and sponsors have made in the research. This research waste may undermine public trust and community enthusiasm for the research process. It may seem logical to offer a prize-winning draw as an incentive but only a trial can give objective information about how well this intervention works. It is cost effective to embed this research at the beginning of an existing large cohort study as funding may not be available to test the intervention as a stand alone question. The additional question of interest addressed will be asking whether one survey reminder or two is more effective in terms of recruitment and survey completion rates. The question is practical as ineffective reminders use researcher resources, increase the burden of participation on the participant and could build resentment if the respondent feels "spammed" whereas the ideal balance of reminders will result in increased recruitment and survey completion rates.
Participants in this cohort are drawn from a convenience sample of BMJ Publishing Group's journals that have a spread of Impact Factors, including the BMJ. Included journals have a website and publish supplementary material.
Devoting time and resources to understand what strategies will mobilize participants to remain motivated to join a study and complete the conditions is good planning and contributes to robust methods that other researchers can replicate. To the investigators' knowledge, no similar work has been conducted solely within the online population of readers, peer reviewers and authors of an academic journal group.
The aims of the study are to test the effect of:
- Being told you will be entered into a prize draw versus not being told on survey recruitment and completion rates across three surveys (authors, readers, reviewers)
- Entering participants into a prize draw with different values of monetary incentives on survey recruitment and completion rates across three surveys (authors, readers, reviewers)
- Sending two survey reminders to each of these incentive groups on survey recruitment and completion rates across three surveys (authors, readers, reviewers)
The research question(s) this research explores is, what effect does the knowledge of being entered into a prize draw have on the rates of recruitment and completion in the study and does varying the value of the incentive influence the outcomes. The study will describe how or if these rates differ between authors, reviewers, and readers. The second question is how does one v two reminders influence recruitment and completion rates.
Participants (authors, reviewers ,and readers) will be invited to take part in the study and will be randomized into one of five trial arms:
All potential participants who are non-responders will receive one reminder to complete the survey (Group A), For those who are still non-responders the initial reminder will be followed by an additional reminder 14 days later (Group B)
Group one will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 100% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group two will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 75% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group three will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 50% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group four will receive information within the invitation letter that they will be entered into a prize draw to win a 25% of an Amazon gift certificate or the currency equivalent.
Group five will not receive any information about the prize draw for an Amazon gift certificate in the invitation letter.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 7
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 Information | Experimental | Other: Group 1 informationGroup 1 Information about the prize draw incentive for 100% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. |
| Group 2 Information | Active comparator | Other: Group 2 informationGroup 2 Information about the prize draw incentive for 75% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. |
| Group 3 Information | Active comparator | Other: Group 3 informationGroup 3 Information about the prize draw incentive for 50% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. |
| Group 4 Information | Active comparator | Other: Group 4 informationGroup 4 Information about the prize draw incentive for 25% of an Amazon gift (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. |
| Group 5 No Information | Active comparator | Other: Group 5 no informationGroup 5 No Information incentive for an Amazon gift certificate (or currency equivalent) in the invitation letter. |
| Group A reminder | Experimental | Other: Group A ReminderOne survey reminder at 14 days |
| Group B reminders | Active comparator | Other: Group B RemindersTwo survey reminders 14 days and 28 days |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Part of SupMat Research
- Corresponding authors of BMJ Group full-length original research submissions in 2013
- BMJ Group Reviewers who completed a review of a manuscript for "original research", "research" or "paper" in 2014.
- BMJ authors, reviewers, and reviewers with a viable email address
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Not Part of SupMat Research
- Potential participants who have opted out of BMJ communications
- Participants in BMJ surveys within the last 6 months
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 informationGroup 1 prize draw information for participants to win 100% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter. | Other | Group 1 Information |
| Group 2 informationGroup 2 prize draw information for participants to win 75% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter. | Other | Group 2 Information |
| Group 3 informationGroup 3 prize draw information for participants to win 50% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter. | Other | Group 3 Information |
| Group 4 informationGroup 4 prize draw information for participants to win 25% of an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter. | Other | Group 4 Information |
| Group 5 no informationGroup 5 no Information for participants to enter a draw to win an Amazon gift card (or currency equivalent) in invitation letter. | Other | Group 5 No Information |
| Group A ReminderOne survey reminder at 14 days | Other | Group A reminder |
| Group B RemindersTwo survey reminders one at 14 days and one at 28 days | Other | Group B reminders |
Primary outcome
Completion
Time frame: Duration of study up to 60 days
proportion of questions completed in the questionnaire
1 secondary outcome
Recruitment
Time frame: Duration of study up to 60 days
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Mar 2021.
- Background: PubMed 9368521Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Oct;50(10):1129-36. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00126-1.
- BackgroundKenyon J, Sprague N, Flathers E. The Journal Article as a Means to Share Data: a Content Analysis of Supplementary Materials from Two Disciplines. J Librarianship Scholarly Community 2016;4:eP2112. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.2112
- BackgroundBaruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relations 2008;61:1139-60. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863
- BackgroundCobanoglu C. The effect of incentives in web surveys : application and ethical considerations. Int J Mark Res 2003;45:475-88.
- BackgroundBeebe L. Supplemental materials for journal articles: NISO/NFAIS working group. Information Standards Quarterly 2010;22:33-7. doi:10 .3789/isqv22n3.2010.07
- Background: PubMed 23528122Education section - Studies Within A Trial (SWAT). J Evid Based Med. 2012 Feb;5(1):44-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2012.01169.x. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 30249629Price A, Schroter S, Clarke M, McAneney H. Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers. BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 24;8(9):e021753. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Data will be shared in aggregated form upon request in order to comply with data protection policies
Related trials for Incentive
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA)
Normal Physiology, Alcohol Use Disorder
Not yet recruiting
Small Monetary Incentives for Digital Cognitive Training Adherence in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Cognitive Decline, Dementia Prevention
RecruitingObservational study
Development and Validation of Learning and Decision-Making Tasks
Normal Physiology
Enrolling by invitation
Incentives and Long-Acting Injectable Adherence After Involuntary Hospitalization
Schizophrenia Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder
Active, not recruiting
The GRoceries Aimed at Increasing Nutrition Study
Type 2 Diabetes, Type II Diabetes Mellitus
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Mike Clarke, PhD principal investigator
Queens University Belfast
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Group 1 information, Group 2 information and Group 3 information in people with Incentive, run by ThinkWell at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Mar 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Completion (time frame: Duration of study up to 60 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02961036, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Mar 2021.