Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28188898›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2017

Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum: development of a new tool for systematic reviews.

L Susan Wieland, Brian M Berman, Douglas G Altman, Jürgen Barth, Lex M Bouter, Christopher R D'Adamo, Klaus Linde, David Moher, C Daniel Mullins, Shaun Treweek and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

L Susan WielandCenter for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 West Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Electronic address: swieland@som.umaryland.edu.
Brian M BermanCenter for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 West Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Jürgen BarthInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, Zürich CH-8091, Switzerland.
Lex M BouterDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007 MB, The Netherlands; Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Christopher R D'AdamoCenter for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 West Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Klaus LindeInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Orleansstrasse 47, Munich 81667, Germany.
David MoherClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 725 Parkdale Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada; School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa ON K1H 8M5, Canada.
C Daniel MullinsPharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, 20 North Pine Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Sean TunisCenter for Medical Technology Policy, World Trade Center Institute, 401 E Pratt St # 631, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Danielle A van der WindtArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Primary Care Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.
Merrick ZwarensteinCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Claudia WittCenter for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 West Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA; Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, Zürich CH-8091, Switzerland; Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Luisenstr. 57, Berlin 10117, Germany.

Funding

Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field: Resource for ResearchR24AT001293 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI BERMAN, BRIAN M, WIELAND, LISA SUSAN · 2003 to 2022
$9.4M
Cancer Research UK 16895Chief Scientist Office HSRU1NCCIH NIH HHS R24 AT001293
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveRandomized trials may be designed to provide evidence more strongly related to efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. When systematic reviews are used to inform clinical or policy decisions, it is important to know the efficacy-effectiveness nature of the included trials. The objective of this study was to develop a tool to characterize randomized trials included in a systematic review on an efficacy-effectiveness continuum.

methodsWe extracted rating domains and descriptors from existing tools and used a modified Delphi procedure to condense the domains and develop a new tool. The feasibility and interrater reliability of the tool was tested on trials from four systematic reviews.

resultsThe Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool rates clinical trials on a five-point Likert scale in four domains: (1) participant characteristics, (2) trial setting, (3) flexibility of interventions, and (4) clinical relevance of interventions. When RITES was piloted on trials from three reviews by unaffiliated raters, ratings were variable (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.25-0.66 for the four domains); but, when RITES was used on one review by the review authors with expertise on the topic, the ratings were consistent (ICCs > 0.80.

conclusionRITES may help to characterize the efficacy-effectiveness nature of trials included in systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic Research DesignReview Literature as TopicComparative Effectiveness ResearchDelphi TechniqueFeasibility StudiesHumansObserver VariationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeApplicabilityComparative effectiveness researchEffectivenessEfficacyExplanatory trialPragmatic trialRandomized controlled trialsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28188898
PMCPMC5441969

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.