STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: The Online Randomized Controlled Trials of Health Information Database was used as the sampling frame to identify a subset of self-recruited online trials of self-management interventions. The authors cataloged what these online trials were assessing, appraised study quality, extracted information on how trials were run, and assessed the potential for bias. We searched out how public and patient participation was integrated into online trial design and how this was reported. We recorded patterns of use for registration, reporting, settings, informed consent, public involvement, supplementary materials, and dissemination planning.
RESULTS: The sample included 41 online trials published from 2002 to 2015. The barriers to replicability and risk of bias in online trials included inadequate reporting of blinding in 28/41 (68%) studies; high attrition rates with incomplete or unreported data in 30/41 (73%) of trials; and 26/41 (63%) of studies were at high risk for selection bias as trial registrations were unreported. The methods for (23/41, 56%) trials contained insufficient information to replicate the trial, 19/41 did not report piloting the intervention. Only 2/41 studies were cross-platform compatible. Public involvement was most common for advisory roles (n = 9, 22%), and in the design, usability testing, and piloting of user materials (n = 9, 22%).
CONCLUSION: This study catalogs the state of online trials of self-management in the early 21st century and provides insights for online trials development as early as the protocol planning stage. Reporting of trials was generally poor and, in addition to recommending that authors report their trials in accordance with CONSORT guidelines, we make recommendations for researchers writing protocols, reporting on and evaluating online trials. The research highlights considerable room for improvement in trial registration, reporting of methods, data management plans, and public and patient involvement in self-recruited online trials of self-management interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To collect detailed information about the practical management patterns specific for AR patients and investigate compliance with ARIA in the clinical practice of Asian physicians and elucidate the possible inadequacy in the existing ARIA guidelines.
METHODS: An e-mail with a structured questionnaire was sent to members of the Asia-Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. The questionnaire consisted of doctors' characteristics, environment of medical practice, routine clinical practice following ARIA guidelines and patients' adherence to the prescription.
RESULTS: Physicians from 14 countries and regions sent valid questionnaires back, 94.12% of whom were senior doctors with more than 10 years of experience. 88.24% of doctors diagnosed AR depending on the history combined with allergy tests. 82.35% of participants employed the classification criteria by ARIA. 94.12%, 88.24% and 41.8% of respondents recommended intranasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists as first-line medications. 5.88% treated perennial AR by intranasal corticosteroids alone. 11.76% of clinicians recommended no allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or biologics and 58.82% of interviewees reported AR patients occasionally or sometimes agreed with the recommendation of AIT.
CONCLUSIONS: There was high compliance with ARIA guidelines in Asian senior physicians' actual notion and practice in the management of AR. New-generation ARIA guidelines are imperative for unmet needs.