Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27494394›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine2016

Clinical Impact Research - how to choose experimental or observational intervention study?

Antti Malmivaara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2018
    Article
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

1 author.

Antti Malmivaaraa Centre for Health and Social Economics, National Institute for Health and Welfare , Mannerheimintie 166 , Helsinki , Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BenchmarkingBiomedical ResearchHealth Services ResearchHumansObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAccessibilitybenchmarking controlled trialclinical impact researcheffectivenessefficiencyequalityhealth carequalityrandomized controlled trialsafety

Identifiers

PMID27494394
PMCPMC5152547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.