Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33343126›Full record

ArticleAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology2020

Design Considerations for Clinical Trials in Aphasia.

Rebecca Palmer

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 2020. 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
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rebecca PalmerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
University of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design to evaluate the effectiveness of new interventions in aphasia has increased in recent years in response to calls for high quality evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for this population. This view-point article highlights some of the important considerations when designing a trial for an aphasia intervention, illustrated with decisions made when designing the Big CACTUS RCT for self-managed computer-based word finding therapy in aphasia. Considerations outlined include whether an RCT is needed, readiness for conducting an RCT, choice of comparators, randomisation options, blinding/masking, selection of outcome measures, pragmatic versus explanatory approaches, and fidelity measurement.

Indexed as

Aphasiarandomised controlled trialstrial design

Identifiers

PMID33343126
PMCPMC7731679
OpenAlexW3090272705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.