ArticleJournal of Crohn's & colitis2024
Pragmatic Trial Design to Compare Real-world Effectiveness of Different Treatments for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: The PRACTICE-IBD European Consensus.
Article in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimising clinical trial design choices in inflammatory bowel disease.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Incorporating Real-World Variability in Clinical IBD Research.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Interpreting modern randomized controlled trials of medical therapy in inflammatory bowel disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 20 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPragmatic studies designed to test interventions in everyday clinical settings can successfully complement the evidence from registration and explanatory clinical trials. The European consensus project PRACTICE-IBD was developed to identify essential criteria and address key methodological issues needed to design valid, comparative, pragmatic studies in inflammatory bowel diseases [BDs].
methodsStatements were issued by a panel of 11 European experts in IBD management and trial methodology, on four main topics: [I] study design; [II] eligibility, recruitment and organisation, flexibility; [III] outcomes; [IV] analysis. The consensus process followed a modified Delphi approach, involving two rounds of assessment and rating of the level of agreement [1 to 9; cut-off ≥7 for approval] with the statements by 18 additional European experts in IBD.
resultsAt the first voting round, 25 out of the 26 statements reached a mean score ≥7. Following the discussion that preceded the second round of voting, it was decided to eliminate two statements and to split one into two. At the second voting round, 25 final statements were approved: seven for study design; six for eligibility, recruitment and organisation, flexibility; eight for outcomes; and four for analysis.
conclusionsPragmatic, randomised, clinical trials can address important questions in IBD clinical practice, and may provide complementary, high-level evidence, as long as they follow a methodologically rigorous approach. These 25 statements intend to offer practical guidance in the design of high-quality, pragmatic, clinical trials that can aid decision making in choosing a management strategy for IBDs.
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.