Physical Activity Interventions in Latin America: What Value Might Be Added by Including Conference Abstracts in a Literature Review?

Hoehner, Christine M.; Soares, Jesus; Parra, Diana C.; Ribeiro, Isabela C.; Pratt, Michael; Bracco, Mário Maia; Hallal, Pedro Curi; Brownson, Ross C.

doi:10.1123/jpah.7.s2.s265

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early returns suggest that all 5 aims have been met. A dynamic multinational partnership was formed, an evidence-based review was completed and the results were published, 5,7,8 and comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluations of community-based physical activity programs in Recife and Curitiba were completed and published. [9][10][11] To date, there have been more than 40 scientific presentations on GUIA and 15 peer-reviewed publications.…”

Section: Evaluate 2 Ongoing Community Interventions Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project GUIA: A Model for Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity in Brazil and Latin America

Pratt

Brownson

Ramos

et al. 2010

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Evaluate 2 Ongoing Community Interventions Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project GUIA: A Model for Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity in Brazil and Latin America

Pratt

Brownson

Ramos

et al. 2010

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…promoting physical activity at the community level [5][6][7]. Examples of this type of intervention are: the Recreovía Program (RCP) in Bogota, Colombia and Academia da Cidade Program (ACP) in Recife, Brazil [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the gap between research and practice: an assessment of external validity of community-based physical activity programs in Bogotá, Colombia, and Recife, Brazil

Páez

Reis

Parra

et al. 2014

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than a decade, physical activity classes have been offered in public places at no cost to the participants in some Latin American cities, however, internal and external validity evidence of these programs is limited. The goals of this study were to assess, report, and compare the external validity of the Recreovia program (RCP) in Colombia, and the Academia da Cidade program (ACP) in Brazil. Interviews to assess external validity of the RCP and ACP were conducted in 2012. The interview guide was developed based on the RE-AIM framework. Seventeen key informants were selected to participate in the study. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative qualitative method and experts validated common themes. RCP and ACP key informants reported that both programs reach underserved population. There is no information available about effectiveness. Both programs take place in public spaces (e.g., parks and plazas), which are selected for adoption mainly based on community demand. RCP and ACP offer free physical activity classes with educational and cultural components, have a strong organizational structure for implementation, and differ on schedule and content of classes. Funding sources were reported to play an important role on long-term maintenance. Facilitators and barriers were identified. Programs are similar in the reach and adoption elements; the main differences were found on implementation and maintenance, whereas information on effectiveness was not found. Reporting external validity of these programs is useful to bridge the gap between research and practice.

show abstract

“…Results from a Cochrane systematic review found that there was an overall smaller treatment effect if systematic reviewers included abstract results in the review compared to the treatment effect size without abstracts included, although this finding was not statistically significant [3]. Additional investigators report similar results, showing small reductions in the size of the treatment effect when abstract results are included in a systematic review [27,28]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study

Scherer

Huynh

Ervin

et al. 2013

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in conference abstracts in systematic reviews is controversial, partly because study design information and risk of bias is often not fully reported in the abstract. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) requires trial registration of abstracts submitted for their annual conference as of 2007. Our goal was to assess the feasibility of obtaining study design information critical to systematic reviews, but not typically included in conference abstracts, from the trial registration record.MethodsWe reviewed all conference abstracts presented at the ARVO meetings from 2007 through 2009, and identified 496 RCTs; 154 had a single matching registration record in ClinicalTrials.gov. Two individuals independently extracted information from the abstract and the ClinicalTrials.gov record, including study design, sample size, inclusion criteria, masking, interventions, outcomes, funder, and investigator name and contact information. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We assessed the frequencies of reporting variables appearing in the abstract and the trial register and assessed agreement of information reported in both sources.ResultsWe found a substantial amount of study design information in the ClinicalTrials.gov record that was unavailable in the corresponding conference abstract, including eligibility criteria associated with gender (83%; 128/154); masking or blinding of study participants (53%, 82/154), persons administering treatment (30%, 46/154), and persons measuring the outcomes (40%, 61/154)); and number of study centers (58%; 90/154). Only 34% (52/154) of abstracts explicitly described a primary outcome, but a primary outcome was included in the “Primary Outcome” field in the ClinicalTrials.gov record for 82% (126/154) of studies. One or more study interventions were reported in each abstract, but agreed exactly with those reported in ClinicalTrials.gov only slightly more than half the time (88/154, 56%). We found no contact information for study investigators in the abstract, but this information was available in less than one quarter of ClinicalTrial.gov records (17%; 26/154).ConclusionRCT design information not reported in conference abstracts is often available in the corresponding ClinicalTrials.gov registration record. Sometimes there is conflicting information reported in the two sources and further contact with the trial investigators may still be required.

show abstract

Physical Activity Interventions in Latin America: What Value Might Be Added by Including Conference Abstracts in a Literature Review?

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

Project GUIA: A Model for Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity in Brazil and Latin America

Project GUIA: A Model for Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity in Brazil and Latin America

Bridging the gap between research and practice: an assessment of external validity of community-based physical activity programs in Bogotá, Colombia, and Recife, Brazil

ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About