Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22315246›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test.

Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa, Ben Goldacre, Martin Gulliford, Jackie Cassell, Munir Pirmohamed, Adel Taweel, Brendan Delaney, Liam Smeeth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. High incidence of colorectal cancer in Japanese individuals with hypertension.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Randomized in error in pragmatic clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025
    Article

25 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

8 authors.

Tjeerd-Pieter van StaaGeneral Practice Research Database, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SZ, UK. Tjeerd.vanstaa@GPRD.com
Ben Goldacre
Martin Gulliford
Jackie Cassell
Munir Pirmohamed
Adel Taweel
Brendan Delaney
Liam Smeeth

Funding

Department of Health 07/50/05Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust 098504
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPatient SelectionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22315246
PMCPMC3934788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.