Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26782822›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

The need for pragmatic clinical trials in low and middle income settings - taking essential neonatal interventions delivered as part of inpatient care as an illustrative example.

Mike English, Jamlick Karumbi, Michuki Maina, Jalemba Aluvaala, Archna Gupta, Merrick Zwarenstein, Newton Opiyo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Mike EnglishKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. menglish@kemri-wellcome.org.
Jamlick KarumbiKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. karumbij@gmail.com.
Michuki MainaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. MMaina@kemri-wellcome.org.
Jalemba AluvaalaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. jaluvaala@kemri-wellcome.org.
Archna GuptaCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, London, Canada. archnagupta@gmail.com.
Merrick ZwarensteinCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, London, Canada. merrick.zwarenstein@ices.on.ca.
Newton OpiyoKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. newtonpiyoo@gmail.com.
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KEWestern University · CA

Funding

Wellcome Trust 084538Wellcome Trust 092654Wellcome Trust 097170
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPragmatic randomized trials aim to examine the effects of interventions in the full spectrum of patients seen by clinicians who receive routine care. Such trials should be employed in parallel with efforts to implement many interventions which appear promising but where evidence of effectiveness is limited. We illustrate this need taking the case of essential interventions to reduce inpatient neonatal mortality in low and middle income countries (LMIC) but suggest the arguments are applicable in most clinical areas. DISCUSSION: A set of basic interventions have been defined, based on available evidence, that could substantially reduce early neonatal deaths if successfully implemented at scale within district and sub-district hospitals in LMIC. However, we illustrate that there remain many gaps in the evidence available to guide delivery of many inpatient neonatal interventions, that existing evidence is often from high income settings and that it frequently indicates uncertainty in the magnitude or even direction of estimates of effect. Furthermore generalizing results to LMIC where conditions include very high patient staff ratios, absence of even basic technologies, and a reliance on largely empiric management is problematic. Where there is such uncertainty over the effectiveness of interventions in different contexts or in the broad populations who might receive the intervention in routine care settings pragmatic trials that preserve internal validity while promoting external validity should be increasingly employed. Many interventions are introduced without adequate evidence of their effectiveness in the routine settings to which they are introduced. Global efforts are needed to support pragmatic research to establish the effectiveness in routine care of many interventions intended to reduce mortality or morbidity in LMIC. Such research should be seen as complementary to efforts to optimize implementation.

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandInfant CarePragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicAdultFemaleHospitalizationHumansIncomeInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornInpatientsPovertyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID26782822
PMCPMC4717536
OpenAlexW2271592073

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.