Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2024
Implementation of a fluid balance control strategy in critically ill patients: POINCARE-2 trial process evaluation.
Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02765009 (Effects of Fluid Balance Control in Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Effects of Fluid Balance Control in Critically Ill Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPOINCARE-2 trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of a strategy designed to tackle fluid overload through daily weighing and subsequent administration of treatments in critically ill patients. Even in highly standardized care settings, such as intensive care units, effectiveness of such a complex intervention depends on its actual efficacy but also on the extent of its implementation. Using a process evaluation, we aimed to provide understanding of the implementation, context, and mechanisms of change of POINCARE-2 strategy during the trial, to gain insight on its effectiveness and inform the decision regarding the dissemination of the intervention.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-method process evaluation following the Medical Research Council guideline. Both quantitative data derived from the trial, and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with professionals were used to explain implementation, mechanisms of change of the POINCARE-2 strategy, as well as contextual factors potentially influencing implementation of the strategy.
resultsScore of actual exposure to the strategy ranged from 29.1 to 68.2% during the control period, and from 61.9 to 92.3% during the intervention period, suggesting both potential contamination and suboptimal fidelity to the strategy. Lack of appropriate weighing devices, lack of human resources dedicated to research, pre-trial rooted prescription habits, and anticipated knowledge of the strategy have been identified as the main barriers to optimal implementation of the strategy in the trial context.
conclusionsBoth contamination and suboptimal fidelity to POINCARE-2 strategy raised concerns about a potential bias towards the null of intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. However, optimal fidelity seemed reachable. Consequently, a clinical strategy should not be rejected solely on the basis of the negativity of ITT analyses' results. Our findings showed that, even in highly standardized care conditions, the implementation of clinical strategies may be hindered by numerous contextual factors, which demonstrates the critical importance of assessing the viability of an intervention, prior to any evaluation of its effectiveness.
trial registrationNumber NCT02765009.
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.