ReviewCurrent opinion in pulmonary medicine2018
Comparative effectiveness trials in asthma - how will I recognize one?
Review in Current opinion in pulmonary medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewComparative efficacy trials are designed to evaluate the harms and benefits of health care in a research environment. There is increasing interest in the results of comparative effectiveness trials, which are intended to fill gaps in evidence to inform decision-making in real-life clinical environments. The objective of this report is to review various tools to classify trials along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum. RECENT
findingsThree tools [Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS), PRECIS-2, and PRAgmatic Clinical Trial Assessment Scale (PRACTAS)] are available that use a star diagram to illustrate where each element of a clinical trial design falls along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum (e.g., selectivity of eligibility criteria, supports to promote participant adherence). The number and type of design element to be classified varies (e.g., 10 elements for PRECIS and PRACTAS vs. nine elements for PRECIS-2; only the PRACTAS tool includes stakeholder engagement). There is substantial interrater reliability when using all three tools and interrater reliability varies across the different design elements (intraclass correlation of coefficient 0.4-0.8). SUMMARY: The PRECIS, PRECIS-2, and PRACTAS tools are options when classifying trials along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum. Researchers and decision-making stakeholders are likely to disagree about the extent to which clinical trials employ efficacy or effectiveness designs.
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.