Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37656456›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

A Centralized EHR-Based Model for the Recruitment of Rural and Lower Socioeconomic Participants in Pragmatic Trials: A Secondary Analysis of the Diuretic Comparison Project.

Cynthia Hau, Jimmy T Efird, Sarah M Leatherman, Oleg V Soloviev, Peter A Glassman, Patricia A Woods, Areef Ishani, William C Cushman, Ryan E Ferguson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02185417 (CSP #597 - Diuretic Comparison Project), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

NCT02185417 phase3completednot on this map

CSP #597 - Diuretic Comparison Project

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2016 to 2022Enrolled20,723ConditionsHypertensionArmsHydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), Chlorthalidone (CTD)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Cynthia HauVA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jimmy T EfirdVA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sarah M LeathermanVA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Oleg V SolovievVA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Peter A GlassmanPharmacy Benefits Management Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington DC.
Patricia A WoodsVA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Areef IshaniMinneapolis VA Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
William C CushmanMedical Service, Memphis VA Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee.
Ryan E FergusonVA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Participant diversity is important for reducing study bias and increasing generalizability of comparative effectiveness research. Objective: Demonstrate the operational efficiency of a centralized electronic health record (EHR)-based model for recruiting difficult-to-reach participants in a pragmatic trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study was a secondary analysis of Diuretic Comparison Project, a randomized clinical trial conducted between 2016 and 2022 (mean [SD] follow-up, 2.4 [1.4] years) comparing 2 commonly prescribed antihypertensives, which used an EHR-based recruitment model. Electronic study workflows, in tandem with routine clinical practice, were adapted by 72 Veteran Affairs (VA) primary care networks. Data were analyzed from August to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measures reflecting recruitment capacity (monthly rate), operational efficiency (median time for completion of electronic procedures), and geographic reach (percentage of patients recruited from rural areas) were examined. Results: A total of 13 523 patients with hypertension (mean [SD] age, 72 [5.4] years; 13 092 male [96.8%]) were recruited from 537 outpatient clinics. Approximately 205 patients were randomized per month and a median of 35 days (Q1-Q3, 23-80 days) was needed to complete electronic recruitment. The annual income was below the national median for 69% of the cohort. Patients from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia were included and 45% resided in rural areas. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial, a centralized EHR-based recruitment model was associated with improved participation from underrepresented groups. These participants often are difficult to reach, with their exclusion potentially biasing trial results; eliminating in-person study visits and local site involvement can minimize barriers for the recruitment of patients from rural and lower socioeconomic areas. Trial Registration: The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02185417.

Indexed as

DiureticsElectronic Health RecordsAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAntihypertensive AgentsHumansIncomeMaleAntihypertensive AgentsDiuretics

Identifiers

PMID37656456
PMCPMC10474559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.