Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34550589›Full record

SynthesisMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2022

Meta-analysis of Pragmatic and Explanatory Trials.

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Theresa Aves

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

2 authors.

Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. mbuagblc@mcmaster.ca.
Theresa AvesDepartment of Cardiology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pooling studies with different clinical and methodological features may lead to statistical heterogeneity, particularly if heterogeneity remains unexplained. One potential source of heterogeneity may be how much the included trials tend toward a pragmatic or explanatory design. Many tools have been developed to aid researchers in quantifying pragmatism in clinical trials, at both the design and appraisal stages.In this chapter we review these tools, illustrate examples of their use, and discuss methods of including pragmatism in meta-analysis as a way of exploring heterogeneity.We suggest a stepwise approach to incorporating evidence from pragmatic and explanatory trials which includes planning to assess pragmatism at the protocol stage, collecting data on pragmatism, extracting data on treatment effects, incorporating pragmatism in meta-analysis using subgroup analysis or meta-regression techniques, and interpreting and reporting the findings transparently.

Indexed as

Research DesignExplanatory trialsHeterogeneityMeta-analysisMeta-regressionPragmatic trialsSubgroup analysisSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID34550589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.