ArticleTrials2020
When assessing generalisability, focusing on differences in population or setting alone is insufficient.
Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Nonlinear dose-response relationship between dietary inflammatory index and risk of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review.BMC public health · 2021Pooled it
- Becoming diplomats with boundaries - a thematic analysis of relatives' experiences with group-based psychoeducation about bipolar disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Examining inclusive research practices to engage communities: a qualitative inquiry.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Smartphones and Mental Health Awareness and Utilization in a Low-Income Urban Community: Focus Group Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Public Involvement in Complex Theorising: A Co-Produced Logic Model of the Role of Context in Shaping Child Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Comment on "Effects of nurse-led symptom management in chronic myeloid malignancies: a randomized trial".Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Multi-component interventions combining psychotherapy and physical activity for children and young peoples' mental health: A scoping review.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Applying the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability Framework Across Implementation Stages to Identify Key Strategies to Facilitate Clinical Decision Support System Integration Within a Large Metropolitan Health Service: Interview and Focus Group Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Identifying cost-based quality and performance indicators for home care: a modified delphi method study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Recruitment and retention challenges and strategies in randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for children with cancer and their parents: a collective case study.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generalisability is typically only briefly mentioned in discussion sections of evaluation articles, which are unhelpful in judging whether an intervention could be implemented elsewhere, with similar effects. Several tools to assess generalisability exist, but they are difficult to operationalise and are rarely used. We believe a different approach is needed. Instead of focusing on similarities (or more likely, differences) in generic population and setting characteristics, generalisability assessments should focus on understanding an intervention's mechanism of action - why or how an intervention was effective. We believe changes are needed to four types of research. First, outcome evaluations should draw on programme theory. Second, process evaluations should aim to understand interventions' mechanism of action, rather than simply 'what happened'. Third, small scoping studies should be conducted in new settings, to explore how to enact identified mechanisms. Finally, innovative synthesis methods are required, in order to identify mechanisms of action where there is a lack of existing process evaluations.
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.