ArticleBMJ open2025
Characteristics, reporting, risk of bias and pragmatism in prehospital emergency care randomised trials from 2010 to 2024: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrehospital emergency care (PEC) requires rapid evidence-based decisions to maximise the effectiveness of care and to improve clinical outcomes. There are multiple challenges related to clinical research performed in the PEC setting. The aim of our study is to systematically review and assess the characteristics, quality of reporting, risk of bias and pragmatism in recent PEC trials, thereby identifying potential gaps and strengths that can guide the design of future prehospital studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search databases MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify all randomised controlled trials conducted in the field of PEC and published in English language between 2010 and 2024. No restrictions will be made to the participants, interventions and outcomes. Risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The level of pragmatism will be assessed using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 score. Exploratory data analysis will be used to investigate and summarise main patterns. Differences in characteristics between PEC fields, study designs, publication year and associations between pragmatism levels, risk of bias and quality of reporting will be the primary focus. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns directly relevant to this review. This study has been previously registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/rzn9j). The manuscript will be submitted for publication to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal.
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.