ArticleLearning health systems2025
A framework for health systems to assess and prioritize participation in pragmatic clinical trials.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- A framework for health systems to assess and prioritize participation in pragmatic clinical trials.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are frequently embedded within settings in which patients receive their routine clinical care. The health care institutions that deliver routine clinical care must therefore decide how they prioritize PCTs in comparison to other institutional priorities. Yet no formal guidance yet exists to support health care institutions' assessment and prioritization of PCTs. Methods: Drawing on a critical review and synthesis of published literature and experience in PCTs, we developed a framework by which health care institutions can assess the appropriateness and feasibility of a given PCT within their system. Results: We propose healthcare institutions assess the appropriateness of a given PCT through three lines of inquiry: (1) importance and timeliness of the research question, (2) feasibility of the study within the respective institution, and (3) institutional willingness to act on the study results. Conclusion: The proposed framework may support decision-making about whether to initiate a given PCT and also how to do so in a way that supports both research and operational priorities.
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.