ReviewCritical care explorations2022
Systematic Review of the "Pragmatism" of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A methodological review of pragmatic designs in acute stroke trials.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2026Review
- The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program: A Pragmatic Research Strategy to Improve Cancer Care for Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Systems.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Consent Approach and Patient Notification in Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials in Critical Care.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Eliciting Patient Preferences for Pragmatic Critical Care Trials: A Qualitative Study.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Negative spillover due to constraints on care delivery: a potential source of bias in pragmatic clinical trials.Trials · 2024Article
- Lack of pragmatic attitude of self-labelled pragmatic trials on manual therapy: a methodological review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Review
- 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 · 2024Article
- Tackling Brain and Muscle Dysfunction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors: NHLBI Workshop Report.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.