Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25719608›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Research activity and the association with mortality.

Baris A Ozdemir, Alan Karthikesalingam, Sidhartha Sinha, Jan D Poloniecki, Robert J Hinchliffe, Matt M Thompson, Jonathan D Gower, Annette Boaz, Peter J E Holt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Clinical research is not an optional extra.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 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

9 authors.

Baris A OzdemirDepartment of Outcomes Research, St George's Vascular Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Alan KarthikesalingamDepartment of Outcomes Research, St George's Vascular Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Sidhartha SinhaDepartment of Outcomes Research, St George's Vascular Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Jan D PolonieckiDepartment of Outcomes Research, St George's Vascular Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Robert J HinchliffeDepartment of Outcomes Research, St George's Vascular Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Matt M ThompsonDepartment of Outcomes Research, St George's Vascular Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Jonathan D GowerNIHR Comprehensive Clinical Research Network Coordinating Centre, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Annette BoazCentre for Health and Social Care Research, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, United Kingdom.
Peter J E HoltDepartment of Outcomes Research, St George's Vascular Institute, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-CS-011-008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aims of this study were to describe the key features of acute NHS Trusts with different levels of research activity and to investigate associations between research activity and clinical outcomes.

methodsNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Clinical Research Network (CCRN) funding and number of patients recruited to NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio studies for each NHS Trusts were used as markers of research activity. Patient-level data for adult non-elective admissions were extracted from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (2005-10). Risk-adjusted mortality associations between Trust structures, research activity and, clinical outcomes were investigated.

resultsLow mortality Trusts received greater levels of funding and recruited more patients adjusted for size of Trust (n = 35, 2,349 £/bed [95% CI 1,855-2,843], 5.9 patients/bed [2.7-9.0]) than Trusts with expected (n = 63, 1,110 £/bed, [864-1,357] p<0.0001, 2.6 patients/bed [1.7-3.5] p<0.0169) or, high (n = 42, 930 £/bed [683-1,177] p = 0.0001, 1.8 patients/bed [1.4-2.1] p<0.0005) mortality rates. The most research active Trusts were those with more doctors, nurses, critical care beds, operating theatres and, made greater use of radiology. Multifactorial analysis demonstrated better survival in the top funding and patient recruitment tertiles (lowest vs. highest (odds ratio & 95% CI: funding 1.050 [1.033-1.068] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.069 [1.052-1.086] p<0.0001), middle vs. highest (funding 1.040 [1.024-1.055] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.085 [1.070-1.100] p<0.0001).

conclusionsResearch active Trusts appear to have key differences in composition than less research active Trusts. Research active Trusts had lower risk-adjusted mortality for acute admissions, which persisted after adjustment for staffing and other structural factors.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityAdultBiomedical ResearchEconomics, HospitalHumansState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25719608
PMCPMC4342017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.