Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26892789›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review.

Andrea Siebenhofer, Stefanie Erckenbrecht, Gudrun Pregartner, Andrea Berghold, Christiane Muth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

5 authors.

Andrea SiebenhoferInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Institute of General Practice and Evidence-based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Stefanie ErckenbrechtAQUA-Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care, Göttingen, Germany.
Gudrun PregartnerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Andrea BergholdInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Christiane MuthInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMost studies conducted at general practices investigate complex interventions and increasingly use cluster-randomised controlled trail (c-RCT) designs to do so. Our primary objective is to evaluate how frequently complex interventions are shown to be more, equally or less effective than routine care in c-RCTs with a superior design. The secondary aim is to discover whether the quality of a c-RCT determines the likelihood of the complex intervention being effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All c-RCTs of any design that have a patient-relevant primary outcome and with a duration of at least 1 year will be included. The search will be performed in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)). The screening process, data collection, quality assessment and statistical data analyses (if suitably similar and of adequate quality) will be performed in accordance with requirements of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A feasibility project was carried out that was restricted to a search in MEDLINE and the CCTR for c-RCTs published in 1 of the 8 journals that are most relevant to general practice. The process from trial selection to data collection, assessment and results presentation was piloted. Of the 512 abstracts identified during the feasibility search, 21 studies examined complex interventions in a general practice setting. Extrapolating the preliminary search to include all relevant c-RCTs in three databases, about 5000 abstracts and 150 primary studies are expected to be identified in the main study. 14 studies included in the feasibility project (67%) did not show a positive effect on a primary patient-relevant end point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not being sought for this review. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals that frequently publish articles on the results of c-RCTs and through presentations at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD201400923.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesGeneral PracticeHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicEPIDEMIOLOGYSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID26892789
PMCPMC4762123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.