ArticlePloS one2012
Outcomes in registered, ongoing randomized controlled trials of patient education.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of health and wellness coaching on patient-important outcomes in chronic illness care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Patient education and counseling · 2023Pooled it
- Inadequate description of educational interventions in ongoing randomized controlled trials.Trials · 2012Pooled it
- Current indications and surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a scoping review.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Patient-important outcomes in clinical trials of atopic diseases and asthma in the last decade: A systematic review.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2023Review
- Evidence for pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk for patients with chronic kidney disease: a study protocol of an evidence map.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Article
- Patient Education Provided by Physiotherapists for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results of a Scoping Review.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2018Article
- Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review.Annals of intensive care · 2017Review
- Detection and measurement of clinically meaningful visual field progression in clinical trials for glaucoma.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2017Review
- Article
- What outcomes should be evaluated in critically ill patients?Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases, patient education is becoming important to strengthen disease prevention and control. We aimed to systematically determine the extent to which registered, ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated an educational intervention focus on patient-important outcomes (i.e., outcomes measuring patient health status and quality of life).
methodsOn May 6, 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data and determined whether the outcomes assessed were 1) patient-important outcomes such as clinical events, functional status, pain, or quality of life or 2) surrogate outcomes, such as biological outcome, treatment adherence, or patient knowledge. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe selected 268 of the 642 potentially eligible studies and assessed a random sample of 150. Patient-important outcomes represented 54% (178 of 333) of all primary outcomes and 46% (286 of 623) of all secondary outcomes. Overall, 69% of trials (104 of 150) used at least one patient-important outcome as a primary outcome and 66% (99 of 150) as a secondary outcome. Finally, for 31% of trials (46 of 150), primary outcomes were only surrogate outcomes. The results varied by medical area. In neuropsychiatric disorders, patient important outcomes represented 84% (51 of 61) of primary outcomes, as compared with 54% (32 of 59) in malignant neoplasm and 18% (4 of 22) in diabetes mellitus trials. In addition, only 35% assessed the long-term impact of interventions (i.e., >6 months).
conclusionsThere is a need to improve the relevance of outcomes and to assess the long term impact of educational interventions in RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.