Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19493350›Full record

ReviewTrials2009

Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability.

Shaun Treweek, Merrick Zwarenstein

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05944718 (Three-arm Pragmatic Randomized Study on the Effectiveness, Feasibility, Acceptability, and Cost of the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices Among People Living With Type 1 Diabetes in South Africa), which is not on this map. Cited by 223 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
223citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05944718 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Three-arm Pragmatic Randomized Study on the Effectiveness, Feasibility, Acceptability, and Cost of the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices Among People Living With Type 1 Diabetes in South Africa

TypeinterventionalSponsorFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, SwitzerlandRan2023 to 2025Enrolled246ConditionsType 1 DiabetesArmsContinuous glucose monitor
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

223 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  12. Pharmacological agents for the prevention of vestibular migraine.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Guideline
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

163 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shaun TreweekDivision of Clinical and Population Sciences and Education, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. streweek@mac.com
Merrick Zwarenstein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials are the best research design for decisions about the effect of different interventions but randomisation does not, of itself, promote the applicability of a trial's results to situations other than the precise one in which the trial was done. While methodologists and trialists have rightly paid great attention to internal validity, much less has been given to applicability. This narrative review is aimed at those planning to conduct trials, and those aiming to use the information in them. It is intended to help the former group make their trials more widely useful and to help the latter group make more informed decisions about the wider use of existing trials. We review the differences between the design of most randomised trials (which have an explanatory attitude) and the design of trials more able to inform decision making (which have a pragmatic attitude) and discuss approaches used to assert applicability of trial results. If we want evidence from trials to be used in clinical practice and policy, trialists should make every effort to make their trial widely applicable, which means that more trials should be pragmatic in attitude.

Indexed as

Research DesignAttitude of Health PersonnelEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID19493350
PMCPMC2700087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.