Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36123103›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Embedded point of care randomisation for evaluating comparative effectiveness questions: PROSPECTOR-critical care feasibility study protocol.

Matthew G Wilson, Folkert W Asselbergs, Ruben Miguel, David Brealey, Steve K Harris

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05149820 (A Single-Centre Feasibility Study of PROSPECTOR - Point of Care RandOmisation Systems for Performing Embedded Comparative Effectiveness Trials Of Routine Treatments in Critical Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

NCT05149820 phase4unknown statusnot on this map

A Single-Centre Feasibility Study of PROSPECTOR - Point of Care RandOmisation Systems for Performing Embedded Comparative Effectiveness Trials Of Routine Treatments in Critical Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2022 to 2023Enrolled100ConditionsAtrial Fibrillation New Onset, Magnesium DeficiencyArmsElectronic Point of Care Randomisation tool, Magnesium
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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.

Matthew G WilsonInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK matthew.wilson8@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-5001-0253
Folkert W AsselbergsInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Ruben MiguelClinical Research Informatics Unit, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
David BrealeyBloomsbury Institute for Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Steve K HarrisInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany routinely administered treatments lack evidence as to their effectiveness. When treatments lack evidence, patients receive varying care based on the preferences of clinicians. Standard randomised controlled trials are unsuited to comparisons of different routine treatment strategies, and there remains little economic incentive for change.Integrating clinical trial infrastructure into electronic health record systems offers the potential for routine treatment comparisons at scale, through reduced trial costs. To date, embedded trials have automated data collection, participant identification and eligibility screening, but randomisation and consent remain manual and therefore costly tasks.This study will investigate the feasibility of using computer prompts to allow flexible randomisation at the point of clinical decision making. It will compare the effectiveness of two prompt designs through the lens of a candidate research question-comparing liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation practices for critical care patients. It will also explore the acceptability of two consent models for conducting comparative effectiveness research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a single centre, mixed-methods feasibility study, aiming to recruit 50 patients undergoing elective surgery requiring postoperative critical care admission. Participants will be randomised to either 'Nudge' or 'Preference' designs of electronic point-of-care randomisation prompt, and liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation.We will judge feasibility through a combination of study outcomes. The primary outcome will be the proportion of prompts displayed resulting in successful randomisation events (compliance with the allocated magnesium strategy). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the acceptability of both prompt designs to clinicians and ascertain the acceptability of pre-emptive and opt-out consent models to patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/LO/0785) and will be published on completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05149820.

Indexed as

MagnesiumPoint-of-Care SystemsClinical Studies as TopicComparative Effectiveness ResearchCritical CareFeasibility StudiesHumansMagnesiumAdult intensive & critical careHealth informaticsSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID36123103
PMCPMC9486229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.