ArticleInternational wound journal2019
Randomised controlled trials as part of clinical care: A seven-step routinisation framework proposal.
Article in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The value of qualitative research in randomized controlled trials involving drugs and medical devices: a systematic mapping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Pooled it
- Strategies for facilitating the delivery of cluster randomized trials in hospitals: A study informed by the CFIR-ERIC matching tool.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Rationale for participation in venous leg ulcer clinical research: Patient interview study.International wound journal · 2020Article
- First-Line Interactive Wound Dressing Update: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- Randomised controlled trials as part of clinical care: A seven-step routinisation framework proposal.International wound journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence translation in wound care relies on the need for evidence generation. Clinical practice may generate evidence only if evidence-generating research projects, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), became routinised in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to identify optimal trial-related practices to routinise trial-related activities in Melbourne-located wound clinics as reported by clinicians and researchers. We conducted a secondary analysis of the available data on how to routinise RCTs in clinical care, with a focus on enablers and suggestions provided by the participants during face-to-face and telephone interviews. Data were obtained from a qualitative observational study nested within a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial on clinical effectiveness of aspirin as an adjunct to compression therapy in healing chronic venous leg ulcers (ASPiVLU). We developed a seven-step Routinisation of Trials in Clinical Care Framework. These steps include: (1) pre-trial clinical site assessment, (2) optimising pre-recruitment arrangements, (3) developing and updating trial-related skills, (4) embedding RCT recruitment as part of routine clinical care, (5) promoting teamwork and trial-related collaboration, (6) addressing trial-related financial issues, and (7) communicating trial results to clinicians.
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.