Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34773994›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Appraising clinical applicability of studies: mapping and synthesis of current frameworks, and proposal of the FrACAS framework and VICORT checklist.

Quoc Dinh Nguyen, Erica M Moodie, Philippe Desmarais, Robert Goulden, Marie-France Forget, Eric Peters, Sahar Saeed, Mark R Keezer, Christina Wolfson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Quoc Dinh NguyenDivision of Geriatrics, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, Saint-Denis, Montreal, Quebec, H2X0C1, Canada. quoc.dinh.nguyen@umontreal.ca.
Erica M MoodieDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Philippe DesmaraisDivision of Geriatrics, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, Saint-Denis, Montreal, Quebec, H2X0C1, Canada.
Robert GouldenDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Marie-France ForgetDivision of Geriatrics, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, Saint-Denis, Montreal, Quebec, H2X0C1, Canada.
Eric PetersDepartment of Anesthesia, Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Canada.
Sahar SaeedDepartment of Infectious Disease, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Mark R KeezerCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Christina WolfsonDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNot all research findings are translated to clinical practice. Reasons for lack of applicability are varied, and multiple frameworks and criteria exist to appraise the general applicability of epidemiological and clinical research. In this two-part study, we identify, map, and synthesize frameworks and criteria; we develop a framework to assist clinicians to appraise applicability specifically from a clinical perspective.

methodsWe conducted a literature search in PubMed and Embase to identify frameworks appraising applicability of study results. Conceptual thematic analysis was used to synthesize frameworks and criteria. We carried out a framework development process integrating contemporary debates in epidemiology, findings from the literature search and synthesis, iterative pilot-testing, and brainstorming and consensus discussions to propose a concise framework to appraise clinical applicability.

resultsOf the 4622 references retrieved, we identified 26 unique frameworks featuring 21 criteria. Frameworks and criteria varied by scope and level of aggregation of the evidence appraised, target user, and specific area of applicability (internal validity, clinical applicability, external validity, and system applicability). Our proposed Framework Appraising the Clinical Applicability of Studies (FrACAS) classifies studies in three domains (research, practice informing, and practice changing) by examining six criteria sequentially: Validity, Indication-informativeness, Clinical relevance, Originality, Risk-benefit comprehensiveness, and Transposability (VICORT checklist).

conclusionsExisting frameworks to applicability vary by scope, target user, and area of applicability. We introduce FrACAS to specifically assess applicability from a clinical perspective. Our framework can be used as a tool for the design, appraisal, and interpretation of epidemiological and clinical studies.

Indexed as

ChecklistPublicationsHumansEvidence-based practiceExternal validityGeneralizabilityImpactQuality assessment

Identifiers

PMID34773994
PMCPMC8590785

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.