Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526083›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice.

Tom Briffa, Tanya Symons, Nikolajs Zeps, Nicola Straiton, William Odita Tarnow-Mordi, John Simes, Ian A Harris, Melinda Cruz, Steven A Webb, Edward Litton and 2 more

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. 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
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.

  1. The changing landscape of clinical trials in Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023
    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

12 authors.

Tom BriffaUniversity of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Tanya SymonsUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nikolajs ZepsEpworth HealthCare, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.
Nicola StraitonUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. nicola.straiton@clinicaltrialsalliance.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5013-0159
William Odita Tarnow-MordiUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
John SimesUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian A HarrisIngham Institute, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Melinda CruzUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Steven A WebbMonash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Edward LittonFiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Alistair NicholMonash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Christopher M WilliamsUniversity of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of research that focuses on optimising health outcomes by comparing currently approved interventions to generate high-quality evidence to inform decision makers. Yet, despite their ability to produce real-world evidence that addresses the key priorities of patients and health systems, many implementation challenges exist within the healthcare environment.This manuscript aims to highlight common barriers to conducting CETs and describes potential solutions to normalise their conduct as part of a learning healthcare system.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareResearch DesignHumansResearch ReportClinical careComparative effectivenessEmbedHigh-quality evidencePragmaticTrials

Identifiers

PMID34526083
PMCPMC8442385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.