Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29277558›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2018

The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design was found to be highly susceptible to low statistical power and internal validity biases.

David Reeves, Kelly Howells, Mark Sidaway, Amy Blakemore, Mark Hann, Maria Panagioti, Peter Bower

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03609658 (Integrated Approach to Patient and Family Engagement for Advance Care Planning for Vulnerable Older Adult Within an Accountable Care Organization), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT03609658 nacompletednot on this map

Integrated Approach to Patient and Family Engagement for Advance Care Planning for Vulnerable Older Adult Within an Accountable Care Organization (ACO)

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2018 to 2019Enrolled146ConditionsAdvance Care PlanningArmsNurse Navigator Pathway, Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

David ReevesNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England. Electronic address: david.reeves@manchester.ac.uk.
Kelly HowellsNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.
Mark SidawaySalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Stott Lane, Salford, M6 8HD, England.
Amy BlakemoreNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.
Mark HannNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.
Maria PanagiotiNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.
Peter BowerNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.

Funding

Department of Health 12/130/33
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe "cohort multiple randomized controlled trial" (cmRCT) is a recent innovation by which novel interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of patients to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice. The use of cmRCTs is outpacing its methodological understanding, and more appropriate methods for designing and analyzing such trials are urgently needed. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe established the UK Comprehensive Longitudinal Assessment of Salford Integrated Care cohort of 4,377 patients with long-term conditions within which we are conducting a cmRCT ("Proactive Telephone Coaching and Tailored Support") of telephone-based health coaching.

resultsWe identify some key methodological challenges to the use of the cmRCT in actual practice. Principal are issues around statistical power, sample size, and treatment effect estimation, for which we provide appropriate methods. Sampling procedures commonly applied in conventional RCTs can result in unintentional selection bias. The fixed data collection points that feature in cmRCTs can also threaten validity.

conclusionThe cmRCT may offer advantages over conventional trial designs. However, a cmRCT requires appropriate power calculation, sampling, and analysis procedures; else, studies may be underpowered or subject to validity biases. We offer solutions to some of the key issues, but further methodological investigations are needed. Cohort multiple RCT-specific Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance may be indicated.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignCohort StudiesHumansSample SizeSelection BiasBiascmRCTCohort studyMethodsSample size calculationTrials within Cohorts

Identifiers

PMID29277558
PMCPMC5844670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.