MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391134920 · doi:10.1186/s13063-024-07935-y

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials: strengthening the concept through a robust international collaborative network: PRIME-9—Pragmatic Research and Innovation through Multinational Experimentation

2024· review· en· W4391134920 on OpenAlexaff
Elmir Ömerovic, Mark Petrie, Björn Redfors, Stephen E. Fremes, Gavin J. Murphy, Guillaume Marquis‐Gravel, Alexandra J. Lansky, Eric J. Velazquez, Divaka Perera, Christopher M. Reid, J. Michael Smith, Peter van der Meer, Eric Lipsic, Peter Jüni, John J.V. McMurray, Johann Bauersachs, Lars Køber, Jean L. Rouleau, Torsten Doenst

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMultinational corporationHealth carePsychological interventionComparative effectiveness researchMedicineRandomized controlled trialPopularityEvidence-based medicineKnowledge managementBusinessNursingAlternative medicineComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era focused on value-based healthcare, the quality of healthcare and resource allocation should be underpinned by empirical evidence. Pragmatic clinical trials (pRCTs) are essential in this endeavor, providing randomized controlled trial (RCT) insights that encapsulate real-world effects of interventions. The rising popularity of pRCTs can be attributed to their ability to mirror real-world practices, accommodate larger sample sizes, and provide cost advantages over traditional RCTs. By harmonizing efficacy with effectiveness, pRCTs assist decision-makers in prioritizing interventions that have a substantial public health impact and align with the tenets of value-based health care. An international network for pRCT provides several advantages, including larger and diverse patient populations, access to a broader range of healthcare settings, sharing knowledge and expertise, and overcoming ethical and regulatory barriers. The hypothesis and study design of pRCT answers the decision-maker's questions. pRCT compares clinically relevant alternative interventions, recruits participants from diverse practice settings, and collects data on various health outcomes. They are scarce because the medical products industry typically does not fund pRCT. Prioritizing these studies by expanding the infrastructure to conduct clinical research within the healthcare delivery system and increasing public and private funding for these studies will be necessary to facilitate pRCTs. These changes require more clinical and health policy decision-makers in clinical research priority setting, infrastructure development, and funding. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of pRCTs, emphasizing their importance in evidence-based medicine and the advantages of an international collaborative network for their execution. It details the development of PRIME-9, an international initiative across nine countries to advance pRCTs, and explores various statistical approaches for these trials. The paper underscores the need to overcome current challenges, such as funding limitations and infrastructural constraints, to leverage the full potential of pRCTs in optimizing healthcare quality and resource utilization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.749
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.797
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7490.797
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.034
Scholarly communication0.0250.022
Open science0.0100.026
Research integrity0.0170.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.760
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207