Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33107006›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2020

Improving Comparative Effectiveness Research of Complex Health Interventions: Standards from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Laura C Esmail, Rebecca Barasky, Brian S Mittman, David H Hickam

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07406087 (Adaptation and Implementation of an Evidence-Based Patient Navigation Intervention for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT07406087 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Adaptation and Implementation of an Evidence-Based Patient Navigation Intervention for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaiser PermanenteRan2026 to 2027Enrolled25ConditionsBreast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Testicular CancerArmsAdapted patient navigation program targeting adolescent and young adult cancer survivors
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. An ecosystem approach to governing commercial actors in healthcare AI.Policy studies (Policy Studies Institute) · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Laura C EsmailClinical Effectiveness and Decision Science Program, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, USA. laura.esmail@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3684-614X
Rebecca BaraskyClinical Effectiveness and Decision Science Program, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, USA.
Brian S MittmanHealth Services Research & Implementation Science, Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA.
David H HickamClinical Effectiveness and Decision Science Program, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComplex health interventions (CHIs) are increasingly studied in comparative effectiveness research (CER), and there is a need for improvements in CHI research practices. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methodology Committee (MC) launched an effort in 2016 to develop formal guidance on this topic.

objectiveTo develop a set of minimal standards for scientifically valid, transparent, and reproducible CER studies of CHIs. The standards are intended to apply to research examining a broad range of healthcare interventions including delivery system, behavior change, and other non-pharmacological interventions.

methodsWe conducted a literature review, reviewed existing methods guidance, and developed standards through an iterative process involving the MC, two panels of external research methods experts, and a 60-day public comment period. The final standards were approved by the PCORI MC and adopted by the PCORI Board of Governors on April 30, 2018.

resultsThe final standards include the following: (1) fully describe the intervention and comparator and define their core functions, (2) specify the hypothesized causal pathways and their theoretical basis, (3) specify how adaptations to the form of the intervention and comparator will be allowed and recorded, (4) plan and describe a process evaluation, and (5) select patient outcomes informed by the causal pathway. DISCUSSION: The new standards offer three major contributions to research: (1) they provide a simple framework to help investigators address the major methodological features of a CHI study, (2) they emphasize the importance of the causal model and the need to understand how a CHI achieves its effects rather than simply measuring these effects, and (3) they require description of a CHI using the concepts of core functions and forms. While these standards apply formally to PCORI-funded CER studies, they have broad applicability.

Indexed as

Comparative Effectiveness ResearchPatient Outcome AssessmentAcademies and InstitutesHumansResearch DesignResearch Personnelcomparative effectiveness researchcomplex health interventionscomplex interventionspatient-centered outcomes research

Identifiers

PMID33107006
PMCPMC7652976

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.