Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27423511›Full record

ArticleSeminars in perinatology2016

Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls.

Haresh Kirpalani, William E Truog, Carl T D'Angio, Michael Cotten

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Seminars in perinatology, 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
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. New perspective for pain control in neonates: a comparative effectiveness research.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Haresh KirpalaniDivision of Neonatology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia at University Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; Emeritus Professor at McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
William E TruogDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO.
Carl T D'AngioDepartment of Pediatrics, and Department of Medical Humanities and Bioethics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY; Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Michael CottenDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Duke University · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USUniversity of Missouri–Kansas City · US

Funding

NICHD Neonatal Research Network -- Cincinnati Clinical CenterUG1HD027853 · NICHD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI STEPHANIE L MERHAR · 2016 to 2026
$3.7M
Clinical Center for NICHD/Neonatal Research NetworkUG1HD068244 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Sara Bonamo DeMauro, Eric C Eichenwald · 2016 to 2026
$3.6M
Rochester-Buffalo Neonatal Research GroupUG1HD068263 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI BLISS, JOSEPH MARK · 2016 to 2024
$1.6M
One Center, Two StatesUG1HD068284 · NICHD · CHILDREN'S MERCY HOSP (KANSAS CITY, MO) · PI TRUOG, WILLIAM E · 2016 to 2017
$15k
NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD027853NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD068244NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD068263NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD068284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information about which currently available interventions and practices are most effective for patients. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the hallmark of scientific proof, and have been used to compare interventions used in variable ways by different clinicians (comparative effectiveness RCTs, CER-RCTs). But such CER-RCTs have at times generated controversy. Usually the background for the CER-RCT is a range of "standard therapy" or "standard of care." This may have been adopted on observational data alone, or pilot data. At times, such prior data may derive from populations that differ from the population in which the widely variable standard approach is being applied. We believe that controversies related to these CER-RCTs result from confusing "accepted" therapies and "rigorously evaluated therapies." We first define evidence-based medicine and consider how well neonatology conforms to that definition. We then contrast the approach of testing new therapies and those already existing and widely adopted, as in CER-RCTs. We next examine a central challenge in incorporating the control arm within CER-RCTs and aspects of the "titrated" trial. We finally briefly consider some ethical issues that have arisen, and discuss the wide range of neonatology practices that could be tested by CER-RCTs or alternative CER-based strategies that might inform practice. Throughout, we emphasize the lack of awareness of the lay community, and indeed many researchers or commentators, in appreciating the wide variation of standard of care. There is a corresponding need to identify the best uses of available resources that will lead to the best outcomes for our patients. We conclude that CER-RCTs are an essential methodology in modern neonatology to address many unanswered questions and test unproven therapies in newborn care.

Indexed as

Comparative Effectiveness ResearchNeonatologyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Newborn, DiseasesPractice Patterns, Physicians'Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignComparative EffectivenessEvidence BasedNeonatologyRandomised controlled trialsResearchStandard of care

Identifiers

PMID27423511
PMCPMC5222533
OpenAlexW2491660557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.