ArticleAnnals of medicine2016
Clinical Impact Research - how to choose experimental or observational intervention study?
Article in Annals of medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Discontinuation of non-anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in interventional versus observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- The integration of dermatology experts into primary care to assess and treat patients with skin lesions is cost-effective: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care - a benchmarking controlled trial.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- The Finnish spine register (FinSpine): development, design, validation and utility.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Article
- Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2022Article
- 7th Baltic and North Sea Conference on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Vascular Rehabilitation - the Journey from Causes to Results.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2022Article
- Common Bias and Challenges in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Research: How to Tackle Them.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
- Applicability of evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews to clinical practice: A conceptual review.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2021Article
- A classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care - protocol for a benchmarking controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Shaping conservative spinal services with the Spine Tango Registry.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterventions directed to individuals by health and social care systems should increase health and welfare of patients and customers.
aimsThis paper aims to present and define a new concept Clinical Impact Research (CIR) and suggest which study design, either randomized controlled trial (RCT) (experimental) or benchmarking controlled trial (BCT) (observational) is recommendable and to consider the feasibility, validity, and generalizability issues in CIR.
methodsThe new concept is based on a narrative review of the literature and on author's idea that in intervention studies, there is a need to cover comprehensively all the main impact categories and their respective outcomes. The considerations on how to choose the most appropriate study design (RCT or BCT) were based on previous methodological studies on RCTs and BCTs and on author's previous work on the concepts benchmarking controlled trial and system impact research (SIR).
resultsThe CIR covers all studies aiming to assess the impact for health and welfare of any health (and integrated social) care or public health intervention directed to an individual. The impact categories are accessibility, quality, equality, effectiveness, safety, and efficiency. Impact is the main concept, and within each impact category, both generic- and context-specific outcome measures are needed. CIR uses RCTs and BCTs.
conclusionsCIR should be given a high priority in medical, health care, and health economic research. Clinicians and leaders at all levels of health care can exploit the evidence from CIR. Key messages The new concept of Clinical Impact Research (CIR) is defined as a research field aiming to assess what are the impacts of healthcare and public health interventions targeted to patients or individuals. The term impact refers to all effects caused by the interventions, with particular emphasis on accessibility, quality, equality, effectiveness, safety, and efficiency. CIR uses two study designs: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (experimental) and benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs) (observational). Suggestions on how to choose between RCT and BCT as the most suitable study design are presented. Simple way of determining the study question in CIR based on the PICO (patient, intervention, control intervention, outcome) framework is presented. CIR creates the scientific basis for clinical decisions. Clinicians and leaders at all levels of health care and those working for public health can use the evidence from CIR for the benefit of patients and the population.
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.