Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40155112›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Global health2025

Democratising clinical trials research to strengthen primary health care.

Christopher C Butler, Robert Mash, Nina Gobat, Paul Little, Mpundu Makasa, Martha Makwero, Edward J Mills, Regina Wing-Shan Sit, Max O Bachmann

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. South African family medicine research: Past, present and future.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Ethical Challenges in International Trials.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christopher C ButlerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: christopher.butler@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Robert MashDivision of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Nina GobatCommunity Readiness and Resilience Unit, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Paul LittlePrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Mpundu MakasaDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Martha MakweroDepartment of Family Medicine, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi.
Edward J MillsDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Regina Wing-Shan SitThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Max O BachmannNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Assembly has called for clinical trials to be strengthened, with broader demographic and geographical inclusion of populations. The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of rigorous evidence to maximise the health gains of primary health care, and to identify strategies for strengthening clinical trials in primary care. Clinical trials should evaluate interventions of all kinds, including preventive manoeuvres, diagnostics, health service research questions, behavioural and educational interventions, vaccines, therapeutics, and policies. Single question trials can be inefficient and seldom strengthen health systems. New approaches that develop or strengthen health research infrastructure and embed research in primary care will identify effective interventions faster, how to deliver them better, and more accurately determine to whom they should be applied. When patients and community members, together with researchers, contribute to conception, design, and delivery, research will result in more useful, relevant evidence. Traditional site-based recruitment (where the participant comes to the trial) can be complemented by approaches that give people the opportunity to contribute regardless of where they live and receive their health care (taking the trials to the people). However, this cannot be done until regulation is modernised to make it easier for health-care professionals, researchers, and research participants to co-design, deliver, and implement such trials, and to develop processes to coordinate and monitor progress against goals for budget shifts, delivery, engagement, trials activity, and impact. Strengthening primary care trials is especially important in those regions where primary care is most under-resourced and is key to pandemic preparedness. Not doing so risks widening inequities further.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPrimary Health CareHumans

Identifiers

PMID40155112
PMCPMC11950428

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.