Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31927698›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2020

Real-World Data and Randomised Controlled Trials: The Salford Lung Study.

David A Leather, Rupert Jones, Ashley Woodcock, Jørgen Vestbo, Loretta Jacques, Mike Thomas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Run-in periods and treatment outcomes in asthma trials: A narrative review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

David A LeatherGlobal Respiratory Franchise, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Brentford, Middlesex, UK. david.a.leather@gsk.com.
Rupert JonesCommunity and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Health, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Ashley WoodcockDivision of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Jørgen VestboDivision of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Loretta JacquesClinical Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK.
Mike ThomasPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional efficacy double-blind randomised controlled trials (DBRCTs) measure the benefit a treatment produces under near-ideal test conditions in highly selected patient populations; however, the behaviour of patients and investigators in such trials is highly controlled, highly compliant and adherent, and non-representative of routine clinical practice. Pragmatic effectiveness trials measure the benefit a treatment produces in patients in everyday "real-world" practice. Ideally, effectiveness trials should recruit patients as similar as possible to those who will ultimately be prescribed the medicine, and create freedom within the study design to allow normal behaviours of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be expressed. The Salford Lung Study (SLS) was a world-first, prospective, phase III, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-licensed medication (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) in real-world practice using electronic health records and through collaboratively engaging general practitioners and community pharmacists in clinical research. The real-world aspect of SLS was unique, requiring careful planning and attention to the goals of maximising the external validity of the trials while maintaining scientific rigour and securing suitable electronic processes for proper interpretation of safety data. Key learnings from SLS that may inform the design of future pragmatic effectiveness RCTs include: (1) ensuring the trial setting and operational infrastructure are aligned with routine clinical care; (2) recruiting a broad patient population with characteristics as close as possible to patients in routine clinical practice, to maximise the generalisability and applicability of trial results; (3) ensuring that patients and HCPs are suitably engaged in the trial, to maximise the chances of successful trial delivery; and (4) careful study design, incorporating outcomes of value to patients, HCPs, policymakers and payers, and using pre-planned analyses to address scientifically valid research hypotheses to ensure robustness of the trial data.

Indexed as

AndrostadienesBenzyl AlcoholsBronchodilator AgentsChlorobenzenesClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationElectronic Health RecordsHealth BehaviorHumansPatient SelectionProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingProspective StudiesPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsAndrostadienesBenzyl AlcoholsBronchodilator AgentsChlorobenzenesfluticasone furoatevilanterolAsthmaChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseEffectivenessFluticasone furoate/vilanterolPrimary careRandomised controlled trialReal worldSalford Lung StudyUsual care

Identifiers

PMID31927698
PMCPMC7147238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.