How to handsearch paper and electronic journals and conference proceedings

for the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Clinical Trials

XV1 Cochrane Colloquium, Freiburg, Germany
October 5, 14:15-15:45, KG 1 - 1016
Answer Sheet

1. This article evaluates the effect of an educational module for third year medical students
on common preventive practices. The Abstract states that the “rotational structure of the
third year clerkships formed a pseudo-randomized design..” This describes a quasi-
random allocation, and so this article is a CCT.

2. This study compares the efficacy of two hand rubs, Avagard and Sterilium. To evaluate
the efficacy, rather than comparing the two hand rubs against each other, the study
compares each to a standard propanol hand rub. Although it is not stated, this appears
to be a crossover study, since “Twenty subjects were included for each of two
experiments.” Without any specification of the order of the tests, it is not possible to tell
whether the study was randomized, quasi-randomized, or neither. Because it is possible
that the allocation to a particular ordering of tests could have been randomized or quasi-
randomized, this study should be included in CENTRAL as a CCT.

3. The Abstract states that actinic keratoses lesions were randomized to receive either the
active treatment, 3% diclofenac in 2.5% hyaluraonan gel or placebo...” This is an
example of body parts within participants, rather than individual participants, being
randomized to different interventions.

4. The Methods section of the Abstract states that 1,500 Norwegians were randomly
selected to participate in this study and also describes four different types of incentives
to return a health questionnaire. Although the individuals were randomly selected for
participation in the study, we cannot tell whether the assignment to one of the incentive
groups was random. Thus, this study is a CCT.

5. In the Abstract, it is stated that this is a “randomized, placebo-controlled trial.” Additional

information is found in the Methods where it is stated that “children were randomized
individually to one of four treatment groups.”

6. The Abstract of this study states that participants were randomly selected, but does not
describe any intervention. This is a cross-sectional study and despite the use of the
keyword "randomly", the article is not eligible for inclusion in CENTRAL.

7. The Abstract describes the study as a “controlled crossover study” but does not indicate
whether or not this is a randomized trial. From the abstract, we would conclude that this
is a CCT.

8. In the Abstract for this study, it is stated that it is a comparative trial of individuals
treated with diet and exercise or diet and exercise plus Guggulu for weight loss . The
method used to assign individuals to each of the two groups is not stated in the
Abstract. Because it is possible that the order was randomized or quasi-randomized, the

Y:\Shared\Cochrane\09 Training\Handsearcher Training\Colloquium Workshops\HS Workshop 2008 Freiburg\Examples\Answer

sheet.wpd 09/25/08
Page 1 of2
Answer Sheet, cont’d

study report should be included in CENTRAL as a CCT.

9. The title of this article states that the study is a “district-randomized controlled trial” and
the Abstract states that the authors “randomly assigned paired districts” to receive STD
training or a control intervention. These statements show that this study was a cluster
randomized trial where the unit of randomization is a group rather than an person and
so this study is eligible as an RCT for CENTRAL.

10. This study is described in the Abstract as a “two-arm intervention design with random
selection of ... community organizations...with cancer coalitions...and 450
organizations... from communities without cancer coalitions.” Although the groups were
randomly selected, the intervention, which is the presence of a cancer coalition, was not
randomly or quasi-randomly assigned, but was present at the study inception. Thus, this
study is not eligible.

11. The abstract of this manuscript mentions that patients were "allocated alternately to
each treatment group." This information is also mentioned in the Methods section,
Allocation of Patients. Alternation was the method to allocate patients to either sodium
stibogluconate (SSG) or Pentostam (PSM) and so this is a CCT rather than an RCT.

12. The Abstract of this study states that it is a “multi-center, single-blinded, randomized,
cohort study.. ” with applications “randomly selected to investigate claims..” However,
the description of the study makes it clear that there was no intervention administered
during the study. Rather, the article describes an observational study in which random
applications for residency programs were reviewed for errors but not allocated to an
intervention. Since this is an observational study, this article is not eligible for CENTRAL.

Y:\Shared\Cochrane\09 Training\Handsearcher Training\Colloquium Workshops\HS Workshop 2008 Freiburg\Examples\Answer

sheet.wpd 09/25/08
Page 2 of2