Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35923590›Full record

ReviewCritical care explorations2022

Systematic Review of the "Pragmatism" of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials.

Jessica A Palakshappa, Kevin W Gibbs, Margo T Lannan, Anna R Cranford, Stephanie P Taylor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A methodological review of pragmatic designs in acute stroke trials.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The times are changing: A primer on novel clinical trial designs and endpoints in critical care research.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2024
    Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Jessica A PalakshappaSection of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
Kevin W GibbsSection of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
Margo T LannanSection of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
Anna R CranfordSection of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
Stephanie P TaylorWake Forest Critical Illness, Injury, and Recovery Research Center, Winston-Salem, NC.

Funding

Screening for Cognitive Impairment Following Critical Illness: Designing and Testing an Implementation Program to Support High Risk Older AdultsK23AG073529 · NIA · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI PALAKSHAPPA, JESSICA ANN · 2021 to 2025
$801k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG073529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the pragmatism of published critical care randomized controlled trials self-described as pragmatic using a validated tool. DATA SOURCES: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Online database and PubMed interface from inception to November 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for critically ill adults that self-identified as pragmatic in title or abstract. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction in duplicate; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Pragmatism was assessed independently in duplicate by trained reviewers using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2), a validated tool designed to represent how explanatory/pragmatic a trial is on the pragmatic to explanatory continuum. Trials were scored in nine domains on a 5-point continuum (from 1 = very explanatory to 5 = very pragmatic). Discrepancies of greater than 2 points were adjudicated by consensus discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search resulted in 284 studies; 56 met eligibility criteria. Forty-one of the trials had a discrepancy in at least one domain that required consensus discussion, most commonly in domains of eligibility and follow-up. Twelve studies (21.4%) were scored as "overall pragmatic," defined as score of greater than 4 in five domains provided the scores in the remaining domains were three. The overall PRECIS-2 score of self-identified pragmatic studies increased from 1995 to 2021 suggesting increasing pragmatism over time. Pragmatic trials were more likely to have a waiver of informed consent (

conclusionsThe number and pragmatism of self-identified pragmatic trials have increased, particularly in the past decade. However, less than one-quarter of these trials that use the term pragmatic in title or abstract were retrospectively rated as pragmatic. Our results support the concept that trials are designed on a spectrum of pragmatic to explanatory. Advances in the design and reporting of critical care trials are needed to ensure their real-world applicability.

Indexed as

critical illnesspragmatic clinical trialrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID35923590
PMCPMC9312432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.