Trial reportTrials2013
Predictive risk stratification model: a progressive cluster-randomised trial in chronic conditions management (PRISMATIC) research protocol.
Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Promising algorithms to perilous applications: a systematic review of risk stratification tools for predicting healthcare utilisation.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Anxiety after completion of treatment for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review to identify candidate predictors and evaluate multivariable model development.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017Pooled it
- Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Effects and costs of implementing predictive risk stratification in primary care: a randomised stepped wedge trial.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Trial
- Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data (TRIPOD-Cluster): explanation and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- A systematic review of risk stratification tools internationally used in primary care settings.Health science reports · 2021Review
- Evaluation of an intervention targeted with predictive analytics to prevent readmissions in an integrated health system: observational study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Observational
- Emergency admission risk stratification tools in UK primary care: a cross-sectional survey of availability and use.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- Improving clinical practice in primary care for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases: a multi-actor approach to two regional pilot projects in Kazakhstan.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2019Review
- Article
- It could be a 'Golden Goose': a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Identifying Patients at Risk of High Healthcare Utilization.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn ageing population increases demand on health and social care. New approaches are needed to shift care from hospital to community and general practice. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) has been developed for general practice that estimates risk of an emergency hospital admission in the following year. We present a protocol for the evaluation of Prism. METHODS/
designWe will undertake a mixed methods progressive cluster-randomised trial. Practices begin as controls, delivering usual care without Prism. Practices will receive Prism and training randomly, and thereafter be able to use Prism with clinical and technical support. We will compare costs, processes of care, satisfaction and patient outcomes at baseline, 6 and 18 months, using routine data and postal questionnaires. We will assess technical performance by comparing predicted against actual emergency admissions. Focus groups and interviews will be undertaken to understand how Prism is perceived and adopted by practitioners and policy makers. We will model data using generalised linear models and survival analysis techniques to determine whether any differences exist between intervention and control groups. We will take account of covariates and explanatory factors. In the economic evaluation we will carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis to examine incremental cost per emergency admission to hospital avoided and will examine costs versus changes in primary and secondary outcomes in a cost-consequence analysis. We will also examine changes in quality of life of patients across the risk spectrum. We will record and transcribe focus groups and interviews and analyse them thematically. We have received full ethical and R and D approvals for the study and Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) permission for the use of routine data. We will comply with the CONSORT guidelines and will disseminate the findings at national and international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUSSION: The proposed study will provide information on costs and effects of Prism; how it is used in practice, barriers and facilitators to its implementation; and its perceived value in supporting the management of patients with and at risk of developing chronic conditions.
trial registrationControlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN no. ISRCTN55538212.
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.