Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32885200›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Defining and conceptualizing outcomes for de-implementation: key distinctions from implementation outcomes.

Beth Prusaczyk, Taren Swindle, Geoffrey Curran

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05975671 (Reducing Empiric VAncomycin Use in Pediatric Suspected Sepsis), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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.

NCT05975671 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Reducing Empiric VAncomycin Use in Pediatric Suspected Sepsis (REVAMP-Sepsis)

TypeinterventionalSponsorChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaRan2023 to 2026Enrolled52,500ConditionsSepsis, Sepsis Mrsa, Sepsis Bacteremia, Antimicrobial - Induced NephropathyArmsMultifaceted de-implementation strategy to reduce vancomycin overuse
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Case for Implementation Science in Medical Radiation Practice.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Beth PrusaczykWashington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8495-0836
Taren SwindleUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 77205 USA.
Geoffrey CurranUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 77205 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly, scholars argue that de-implementation is a distinct concept from implementation; factors contributing to stopping a current practice might be distinct from those that encourage adoption of a new one. One such distinction is related to de-implementation CONCEPTUALIZATION OF OUTCOMES: We conceptualize each of the outcomes from Proctor and colleagues' taxonomy of implementation outcomes for de-implementation research. First, we suggest key considerations for researchers assessing de-implementation outcomes, such as considering how the cultural or historical significance to the practice may impact de-implementation success and, as others have stated, the importance of the patient in driving healthcare overuse. Second, we conceptualize de-implementation outcomes, paying attention to a number of factors such as the importance of measuring outcomes not only of the

conclusionWe conceptualized existing implementation outcomes within the context of de-implementation, noted where there are similarities and differences to implementation research, and recommended a clear distinction between the target for de-implementation and the strategies used to promote de-implementation. This critical analysis can serve as a building block for others working to understand de-implementation processes and de-implement practices in real-world settings.

Indexed as

De-adoptionDe-implementationMeasurementMethodsOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID32885200
PMCPMC7427870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.