ReviewBMC medical research methodology2024
Lack of pragmatic attitude of self-labelled pragmatic trials on manual therapy: a methodological review.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPragmatic randomized controlled trials are getting more interest to improve trials' external validity. This study aimed to assess how pragmatic the design of the self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field is.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field until January 2024 were included. Two independent reviewers collected and extracted data related to the intention of the trial, the rationale for the intervention, and specific features of the trial and performed an assessment using the PRECIS-2 tool.
resultsOf 39 self-labelled pragmatic trials, the mean PRECIS-2 score was 3.5 (SD: 0.6). Choice of outcome measures, how the interventions were performed, the follow-up of the participants and how all the available data were included in the statistical analysis were the domains rated as most 'pragmatic'. Participants' eligibility, recruitment, and setting obtained lower scores. Less than 25% of the trials claimed that the aim was to investigate an intervention under real-world conditions and to make clinical decisions about its effectiveness. In the 21% of the sample the authors described neither the proof-of-concept of the intervention nor the state of previous studies addressing related research questions.
conclusionsSelf-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials showed a moderately pragmatic attitude. Beyond the label 'pragmatic', the description of the intention of the trial and the context of every PRECIS-2 domain is crucial to understanding the real pragmatism of a trial.
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.