Evidence mapPaperPMID 28131998Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Methodology used in comparative studies assessing programmes of transition from paediatrics to adult care programmes: a systematic review.

E Le Roux, H Mellerio, S Guilmin-Crépon, S Gottot, P Jacquin, R Boulkedid, C Alberti

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02617030 (Developing a Program for Transition to Adult Care for Youth With Chronic Conditions), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
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.

NCT02617030 completednot on this map

Developing a Program for Transition to Adult Care for Youth With Chronic Conditions : a Mixed Method Study

TypeobservationalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2014 to 2018Enrolled390ConditionsTransition Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. 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

7 authors.

E Le RouxUFR de Médecine Paris Diderot-Site Villemin, Unité INSERM ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Paris, France.
H MellerioUFR de Médecine Paris Diderot-Site Villemin, Unité INSERM ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Paris, France.
S Guilmin-CréponUFR de Médecine Paris Diderot-Site Villemin, Unité INSERM ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Paris, France.
S GottotUFR de Médecine Paris Diderot-Site Villemin, Unité INSERM ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Paris, France.
P JacquinAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Robert Debré, CIC-EC, Unité INSERM CIC 1426, Paris, France.
R BoulkedidUFR de Médecine Paris Diderot-Site Villemin, Unité INSERM ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Paris, France.
C AlbertiUFR de Médecine Paris Diderot-Site Villemin, Unité INSERM ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the methodologies employed in studies assessing transition of care interventions, with the aim of defining goals for the improvement of future studies.

designSystematic review of comparative studies assessing transition to adult care interventions for young people with chronic conditions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: 2 reviewers screened comparative studies with experimental and quasi-experimental designs, published or registered before July 2015. Eligible studies evaluate transition interventions at least in part after transfer to adult care of young people with chronic conditions with at least one outcome assessed quantitatively.

results39 studies were reviewed, 26/39 (67%) published their final results and 13/39 (33%) were in progress. In 9 studies (9/39, 23%) comparisons were made between preintervention and postintervention in a single group. Randomised control groups were used in 9/39 (23%) studies. 2 (2/39, 5%) reported blinding strategies. Use of validated questionnaires was reported in 28% (11/39) of studies. In terms of reporting in published studies 15/26 (58%) did not report age at transfer, and 6/26 (23%) did not report the time of collection of each outcome.

conclusionsFew evaluative studies exist and their level of methodological quality is variable. The complexity of interventions, multiplicity of outcomes, difficulty of blinding and the small groups of patients have consequences on concluding on the effectiveness of interventions. The evaluation of the transition interventions requires an appropriate and common methodology which will provide access to a better level of evidence. We identified areas for improvement in terms of randomisation, recruitment and external validity, blinding, measurement validity, standardised assessment and reporting. Improvements will increase our capacity to determine effective interventions for transition care.

Indexed as

Research DesignTransition to Adult CareHumansPAEDIATRICSPUBLIC HEALTHSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID28131998
PMCPMC5278245

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.