Cited by 98Digital Mental Health InterventionsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Internet-based randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Open access
Mathieu, Erin, McGeechan, Kevin, Barratt, Alexandra, Herbert, Robert·2013·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The internet is increasingly being used to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Knowledge of the types of interventions evaluated and the methodological quality of these trials could inform decisions about whether to conduct future trials using conventional methods, fully online or a mixture of the two. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the scope of internet-based RCTs for human health condition interventions and evaluate their methodological quality. METHODS: A systematic review of RCTs of any health intervention conducted fully or primarily on the internet was carried out. RESULTS: 23 fully and 27 primarily internet-based RCTs were identified. The first was conducted in 2000. The majority of trials evaluated interventions that involved providing health information to participants, but a few evaluated self-administered interventions (eg, valerian, stretching). Methodological quality was variable and the methods were generally poorly reported. The risk of bias was low in only a small number of trials; most had substantial methodological shortcomings. Only one trial was identified as meeting all criteria for adequate methodological quality. A particular problem was high rates of loss to follow-up (fully online: mean 47%; primarily online: mean 36%). CONCLUSIONS: It is theoretically possible but perhaps difficult to test the effectiveness of health interventions rigorously with RCTs conducted fully or primarily over the internet. The use of the internet to conduct trials is more suited to pragmatic rather than explanatory trials. The main limitation of these trials is that they typically experience high rates of loss to follow-up. Methodological standards now accepted for traditional RCTs needs to be evident for online RCTs as well, especially in reporting of their methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001175

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mathieu, E., McGeechan, K., Barratt, A., & Herbert, R.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Mathieu, Erin
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2013-05-01
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
568-576
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W111728225
Cited by
98
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
online trials, methodological quality, loss to follow-up, risk of bias, health information interventions, self-administered intervention, trial reporting standards, pragmatic trials, explanatory trials
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review