Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31146778›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Is this study feasible? Facilitating management of pragmatic trial planning milestones under a phased award funding mechanism.

Paula Darby Lipman, Leanora Dluzak, Catherine M Stoney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paula Darby LipmanWestat, 1600 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. paulalipman@westat.com.
Leanora DluzakWestat, 1600 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7572-428X
Catherine M StoneyNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20817, USA.
Westat (United States) · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Evaluation and Administration Support for Pragmatic TrialsR01HL125114 · NHLBI · WESTAT, INC. · PI LIPMAN, PAULA DARBY · 2014 to 2018
$1.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS 1R01HL125114-01NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL125114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving efficiencies in clinical research is crucial to translation of findings into practice and delivery of effective, patient-centered health care. This paper describes a project that monitored pragmatic clinical trials by working with investigators to track achievement of early phase milestones. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project supported scientifically diverse, low-cost, randomized, controlled, pragmatic clinical intervention trials. Funds were available through a cooperative agreement award mechanism, with the initial phase supporting trial planning and the subsequent 4-year awards funding trial implementation. A coordinating center provided evaluation and administrative support, which included capturing progress toward achieving milestones.

methodsSix funded trials participated in monthly calls throughout the first year to identify and demonstrate metrics and deliverables for each milestone in the Notice of Grant Award. Interviews were conducted with investigators, trial team members, and NIH program officers/project scientists to discuss their perceptions of the impact and value of the management strategy.

resultsFive of six trials transitioned to the implementation phase with milestones ranging from 6 to 15 and quantifiable metrics ranging from 15 to 33, for a total of 121 deliverables. One third of the metrics (42, 35%) were trial-specific. Trial teams reported that the oversight was onerous but complemented their management strategies; program officers/project scientists found that documentation submitted for review was sufficient to assess trial feasibility; and investigators reported advantages to the phased award mechanism, such as leverage to secure commitments from stakeholders and collaborators, help with task prioritization, and earlier consultation with key members of the trial team.

conclusionsImplementing systematic approaches to identify milestones and track metrics can strengthen the evidence base regarding time and effort to plan and conduct pragmatic clinical trials. Investigators were unaccustomed to producing evidence of performance, and it was challenging to determine what documentation to provide. Efforts to standardize expectations regarding milestones that mark a significant change or stage in trial development or that represent minimum success criteria may provide guidance for more effective and efficient trial management. A framework with clearly specified metrics is especially critical for transparency, particularly when funding decisions are contingent on both merit and feasibility.

Indexed as

Pragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignAwards and PrizesHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)United StatesImproving efficienciesMetricsMilestonesPhased awardPragmatic trialsTrial conductTrial management

Identifiers

PMID31146778
PMCPMC6543574
OpenAlexW2947290784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.