400864 Research Methods Assessment 3

CONSORT appraisal

Title and Abstract

According to Schulz, Altman, & Moher, (2010) in their CONSORT Statement item
1a, the title of Resendiz et al. (2019) does not identify the study as a randomised
control trial making it difficult for evidence-based practitioners (EBPs) searching
titles to find this article.

The abstract partially conforms to item 1b. The background and objective offers a
broad overview of the study but does not identify who the participants or groups of
people will be. No structured summary, age of participants, eligibility criteria, data
collection and measuring of outcomes or blinding can be identified from the
abstract as well as how participants were randomised into control or intervention
groups, this makes it difficult for EBPs to assess the study without reading the
body. The authors do however mention the proposed outcomes to be assessed,
both control and interventions as well as the number of participants in the study.
The proposed outcomes for the study are mentioned in the results section and the
conclusion does offer suggestions for those who wish to conduct further studies
into the topic, as well as matching the results. No reason is given for the result of
no changes in health outcomes, which is one of the objectives for the study. This
abstract makes it difficult for EBPs to ascertain the required information, therefore
they would need to read the main body of the text to find out more.

Introduction
In relation to CONSORT Statement (Schulz, Altman, & Moher, 2010) items 2a
regarding scientific background and explanation of rationale both are mentioned
and it does state why the intervention is taking place. The authors do give
significant background information into the dangers of the control and why there is
a need to identify ways to combat this. There is also the mention of the previous
(limited) studies along with their objectives, outcomes and findings. The
explanation of the rationale is mentioned, however it is debateable whether there is
scientific background backing the rationale specific to this study due to the
intervention and the control being similar. As mentioned in the conclusion of the
abstract, there is discourse that gives those looking to replicate the study ideas of

Joel Tomas 20050955

 400864 Research Methods Assessment 3

what to incorporate to see variations to the results.

In relation to CONSORT items 2b regarding specific objectives or hypotheses.

There is limited information relating to the proposed study, the authors should
possibly have another intervention that includes some form of physical activity, not
just a stand/sit desk. There is also the mention that there is limited information
regarding the outcomes of the intervention proposed, which could make this
enticing for further studies. The introduction section clearly outlines the objectives
and hypothesis of the study in the final sentence of the closing paragraph.

Methods
The methods section partially conforms to Schulz, Altman, & Moher, (2010) in their
CONSORT Statement. There is no description of trial design or important changes
to methods after the commencement of the trial. Participants were recruited from a
large military medical facility in the Pacific.

Item 5 was mentioned, but not exactly when it was administered, although a time
period was given. Item 6a and b is not applicable to this study. In relation to Item
7a & b, the ideal number of participants was mentioned, but not how sample size
was determined, making it hard to replicate.
Items 8a, 8b, 9 & 10 in the CONSORT statement referring to the Resendiz et al.
article; blocked randomisation was carried out in blocks of 10 participants for the
first 20 participants. The remaining 15 participants were all assigned to the
intervention group. “For the first two blocks, group assignments were made based
on random assignment to either the control or intervention group, with 10
participants assigned to the control group and 10 to the intervention group”
(Resendiz et al., 2019). There is no mention of who assigned participants to
interventions or if there was blinding after allocation to interventions. The
intervention and control are quite similar as one is a regular desk with a seat, and
the other is an adjustable desk where user can sit or stand. For Item 12a, height,
weight and waist circumferences were measured to compare groups.

Item 12a & 12b; According to Resendiz et al. (2019), “paired t-tests were used to
assess changes over time in BMI and waist circumference for both the control and

Joel Tomas 20050955

 400864 Research Methods Assessment 3

intervention groups”. Furthermore, “unpaired t-tests were used to assess group

differences in mean BMI and waist circumference at the start of study”( Resendiz et
al., 2019). Other assessment tools used include Wilcoxon signed rank tests and
Bland-Altman. The methods are sound for evidence based practitioners (EBPs) to
replicate the study.

Results
Items 13a & 13b are outlined in the table below

Participants (n=35) Inclusion criteria: 18 years or older, self-report sitting at desk 6+ hours per
Female = 28 Male = 7 workday, BMI index, personal workstation/permission to allow the
installation of the standing desk

Control Group – regular desk Intervention Group – standing desk

(n=11) (n=24)

Control Group Intervention Group Incompletion reasons: 2 due to randomization; 1 became

Dropout (n=3) Dropout (n=6) pregnant; 3 lost to follow-up; 3 leaving medical facility

Control Group Intervention Group

Completion (n=8) Completion (n=18)

The overall results section partly conforms to the CONSORT statement. Item 14a &
14b although specific dates are not given, the time period is mentioned for the overall
study and the study ended due to the stated time period of six months. Item 15
pertains to the results table that displays the pre and post-installation health
outcomes after six month standing desk intervention. The results displayed in the
table are standard deviation and p-value for the 26 participants, and all other results
written in the remainder of the results section. No binary outcomes as per Item 17b
were reported, as well as Item 19 in relation to harms or unintended effects. The
results are relevant to the study, but more rigid inclusion criteria and intervention
would be recommended for future studies.

Discussion
In relation to Item 20, although trial limitations and biases are not mentioned in the
paper an EBP could apply an intervention that involves some amount of physical

Joel Tomas 20050955

 400864 Research Methods Assessment 3

activity per day for the intervention group. The trial was conducted on one workplace
with no mention of age groups which could have a bearing on results, nor were
eating habits and physical activity. The authors mention previous studies and papers
that have looked at the topic, and it proves them to be true (generalisability), but the
actual depth of all these studies mentioned is limited which encompasses Item 21 of
the CONSORT statement. Although sedentary behaviour decreased as per the
results, a six-month study may not be long enough to assess this and the self-
reported over-estimations indicate that this may not be the case. Looking at alternate
ways to decrease sedentary behaviours and the associated health effects is a
worthwhile study to conduct as it would help increase workplace productivity and can
benefit employers as well, especially in at-risk populations.

References

Resendiz, M., Lustik, M. B., Conkright, W. R., & West, G. F. (2019). Standing desks
for sedentary occupations: Assessing changes in satisfaction and health
outcomes after six months of use. Work, 63(3), 347-353.

Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. for the CONSORT Group. (2010).
CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group
randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.

Joel Tomas 20050955