ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2011
Effectiveness studies: advantages and disadvantages.
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pelargonium sidoides extract (EPs® 7630) versus usual care for acute bronchitis in Swiss primary care (PHYTOBRONCH): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Trial
- Drug-gene and drug-drug interactions associated with tramadol and codeine therapy in the INGENIOUS trial.Pharmacogenomics · 2019Trial
- A Phase IV Efficacy Study of Formeta Plus Carboplatin as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Squamous, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Iran: An Affordable Price with Clinical BenefitAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Trial
- A non-randomised pragmatic trial of a school-based group cognitive-behavioural programme for preventing depression in girls.International journal of circumpolar health · 2017Trial
- What Should Primary Prevention in Burnout Look Like? Promoting Attributes, Roles and Social Networks with Instrumental Outcomes.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Abuse liability for esketamine in a cohort of patients undergoing an acute treatment course to manage treatment-resistant depression: a secondary analysis of an observational study in real-world clinical practicee.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
- A mindfulness-based intervention for Substance Use Disorder in a Brazilian vulnerable population: a feasibility mixed method study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Social validity of acceptance-based workplace mental health training for use in a low resource setting. A qualitative study with Ugandan mental health providers.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- Development of a Mobile App to Monitor the Effectiveness of a Hydrolyzed Cartilage Matrix Supplement on Joint Discomfort: Real-World Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Kefir and the Gut-Skin Axis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of PegaGenSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Prophylaxis of Neutropenia with Lipegfilgrastim in Breast Cancer Patients with Dose-Dense Chemotherapy: Results of a Noninterventional Study on Therapeutic Routine in Germany (NADENS).Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Real-life data of survival and reasons for discontinuation of biological disease-modifying drugs 'in' rheumatoid arthritis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Primary Care Peer-Supported Internet-Mediated Psychological Treatment for Adults With Anxiety Disorders: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
- Does It work in Clinical Practice? A Comparison of Colonoscopy Cleansing Effectiveness in Clinical Practice Versus Efficacy from Selected Prospective Trials.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Comparing Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Pharmacotherapy.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Review
- Clinical effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in usual practice: the COPD INTREPID study design.ERJ open research · 2019Article
- Manual therapy for chronic migraine: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial study protocol.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2019Article
- The Research and Evaluation of Antipsychotic Treatment in Community Behavioral Health Organizations, Outcomes (REACH-OUT) study: real-world clinical practice in schizophrenia.BMC psychiatry · 2018Observational
- Ezetimibe prescriptions in older Canadian adults after an acute myocardial infarction: a population-based cohort study.Lipids in health and disease · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, so-called "effectiveness studies," also called "real-world studies" or "pragmatic trials," have gained increasing importance in the context of evidence-based medicine. These studies follow less restrictive methodological standards than phase III studies in terms of patient selection, comedication, and other design issues, and their results should therefore be better generalizable than those of phase III trials. Effectiveness studies, like other types of phase IV studies, can therefore contribute to knowledge about medications and supply relevant information in addition to that gained from phase III trials. However, the less restrictive design and inherent methodological problems of phase IV studies have to be carefully considered. For example, the greater variance caused by the different kinds of confounders as well as problematic design issues, such as insensitive primary outcome criteria, unblinded treatment conditions, inclusion of chronic refractory patients, etc, can lead to wrong conclusions. Due to these methodological problems, effectiveness studies are on a principally lower level of evidence, adding only a complementary view to the results of phase III trials without falsifying their results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21842617PMC3181999What OpenQuestion holds
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.