Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37715007›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2023

Optimizing clinical nutrition research: the role of adaptive and pragmatic trials.

Camila E Orsso, Katherine L Ford, Nicole Kiss, Elaine B Trujillo, Colleen K Spees, Jill M Hamilton-Reeves, Carla M Prado

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Camila E OrssoHuman Nutrition Research Unit, Department of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5989-0528
Katherine L FordHuman Nutrition Research Unit, Department of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8620-9360
Nicole KissInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6476-9834
Elaine B TrujilloDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8480-2427
Colleen K SpeesDivison of Medical Dietetics, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jill M Hamilton-ReevesDepartment of Urology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Carla M PradoHuman Nutrition Research Unit, Department of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Carla.prado@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3609-5641

Funding

Effect of Immune-Enhancing Nutrition on Radical Cystectomy Outcomes- MERIT extensionR37CA218118 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI HAMILTON-REEVES, JILL REEVES · 2018 to 2024
$4.0M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS L30 CA209644NCI NIH HHS R37 CA218118
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based nutritional recommendations address the health impact of suboptimal nutritional status. Efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the preferred method for determining the effects of nutritional interventions on health outcomes. Nevertheless, obtaining a holistic understanding of intervention efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings is stymied by inherent constraints of efficacy RCTs. These limitations are further compounded by the complexity of nutritional interventions and the intricacies of the clinical context. Herein, we explore the advantages and limitations of alternative study designs (e.g., adaptive and pragmatic trials), which can be incorporated into RCTs to optimize the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in clinical nutrition research. Efficacy RCTs often lack external validity due to their fixed design and restrictive eligibility criteria, leading to efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Adaptive trials improve the evaluation of nutritional intervention efficacy through planned study modifications, such as recalculating sample sizes or discontinuing a study arm. Pragmatic trials are embedded within clinical practice or conducted in settings that resemble standard of care, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of intervention effectiveness. Pragmatic trials often rely on patient-oriented primary outcomes, acquire outcome data from electronic health records, and employ broader eligibility criteria. Consequently, adaptive and pragmatic trials facilitate the prompt implementation of evidence-based nutritional recommendations into clinical practice. Recognizing the limitations of efficacy RCTs and the potential advantages of alternative trial designs is essential for bridging efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Ultimately, this awareness will lead to a greater number of patients benefiting from evidence-based nutritional recommendations.

Indexed as

Nutritional StatusResearch DesignAdaptive Clinical Trials as TopicHumansPragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID37715007
PMCPMC10861156

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.