Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40139706›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

What are the broader impacts and value from a randomised controlled trial conducted in six public hospital antenatal clinics in Australia? An impact assessment using the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research.

Elissa Elvidge, Vanessa E Murphy, Melanie Rao, Peter G Gibson, Karen McLaughlin, Annelies Robijn, Megan E Jensen, Leonie Kaye Callaway, John Attia, Michael Hensley and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  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

21 authors.

Elissa Elvidge *School of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1729-731X
Vanessa E Murphy *School of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3282-1324
Melanie RaoHealth Research Economics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter G GibsonSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Karen McLaughlinSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Annelies RobijnSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Megan E JensenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Leonie Kaye CallawayObstetric Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
John AttiaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9800-1308
Michael HensleyDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Warwick GilesSpecialty of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael PeekAustralian National University Medical School, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Helen BarrettRoyal Hospital for Women Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Sean SeehoSpecialty of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joerg MattesSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3729-5722
Alistair AbbottNepean Hospital, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew BisitsRoyal Hospital for Women Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferySchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2696-5006
Paul B ColditzSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Andrew SearlesHealth Research Economics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Shanthi Ann RamanathanSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia shanthi.ramanathan@hmri.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1374-5565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Breathing for Life Trial (BLT) was a multicentre randomised controlled trial testing the hypothesis that a fractional exhaled nitric oxide-based intervention to guide asthma therapy in pregnancy improves perinatal outcomes. While BLT was negative based on selected outcomes, the conduct of the trial over 7 years showed potential for assessing the broader research impacts and returns on investment in BLT. The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess and report on the impact and value of BLT to show accountability for the research investment in what was deemed a 'negative' trial.

methodsThe Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) was selected as the preferred method. FAIT combines three validated methods, including a modified Payback framework, an economic analysis of return on investment and a narrative account of the impact generated from the research. Data collection was done via document analysis of BLT administrative and research records and review of relevant websites/databases.

resultsBLT delivered a return on investment of $6.7 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies and conservatively returned $2.44 for every dollar invested. The research trained and upskilled 18 midwives and obstetricians in evidence-based asthma management in pregnancy and improved research capability of six PhD students. Specialised equipment purchased by BLT is now being repurposed to undertake other research in regional Australia, saving further research investment. Of the 1200 mothers who were part of BLT, 508 now have written asthma plans, 268 had a clinically significant improvement in their asthma control score and the proportion who improved their asthma plan knowledge increased by 58 percentage points from 12 to 70%.

conclusionThis case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report more broadly on the impact of and returns on research investment in a clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000202763; Post results.

Indexed as

AsthmaPregnancy ComplicationsPrenatal CareTranslational Research, BiomedicalAustraliaBreath TestsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHospitals, PublicHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicNitric OxidePregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesNitric OxideAsthmaClinical TrialHEALTH ECONOMICSMaternal medicinePrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID40139706
PMCPMC11950953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.