ArticleSystematic reviews2018
A comparison of meta-analytic methods for synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of Pragmatic and Explanatory Trials.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pragmatic Trials in Genomic Medicine: The Integrating Pharmacogenetics In Clinical Care (I-PICC) Study.Clinical and translational science · 2020Trial
- Meta-research on pragmatism of randomized trials: rationale and design of the PragMeta database.Trials · 2023Article
- The Efficacy of a Diet Low in Fermentable Oligo-, Di-, Monosaccharides, and Polyols in Irritable Bowel Syndrome Compared to Its "Real-world" Effectiveness: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- The benefits of data sharing and ensuring open sources of systematic review data.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Implementation of e-Mental Health Interventions for Informal Caregivers of Adults With Chronic Diseases: Mixed Methods Systematic Review With a Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Thematic Synthesis.JMIR mental health · 2022Review
- Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
- Designing provider-focused implementation trials with purpose and intent: introducing the PRECIS-2-PS tool.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary version 2 (PRECIS-2) tool has recently been developed to classify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as pragmatic or explanatory based on their design characteristics. Given that treatment effects in explanatory trials may be greater than those obtained in pragmatic trials, conventional meta-analytic approaches may not accurately account for the heterogeneity among the studies and may result in biased treatment effect estimates. This study investigates if the incorporation of PRECIS-2 classification of published trials can improve the estimation of overall intervention effects in meta-analysis.
methodsUsing data from 31 published trials of intervention aimed at reducing obesity in children, we evaluated the utility of incorporating PRECIS-2 ratings of published trials into meta-analysis of intervention effects in clinical trials. Specifically, we compared random-effects meta-analysis, stratified meta-analysis, random-effects meta-regression, and mixture random-effects meta-regression methods for estimating overall pooled intervention effects.
resultsOur analyses revealed that mixture meta-regression models that incorporate PRECIS-2 classification as covariate resulted in a larger pooled effect size (ES) estimate (ES = - 1.01, 95%CI = [- 1.52, - 0.43]) than conventional random-effects meta-analysis (ES = - 0.15, 95%CI = [- 0.23, - 0.08]).
conclusionsIn addition to the original intent of PRECIS-2 tool of aiding researchers in their choice of trial design, PRECIS-2 tool is useful for explaining between study variations in systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials. We recommend that researchers adopt mixture meta-regression methods when synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials.
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.