↓ Skip to main content

Informing real-world practice with real-world evidence: the value of PRECIS-2

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Informing real-world practice with real-world evidence: the value of PRECIS-2
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1071-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gila Neta, Karin E. Johnson

Abstract

Real-world evidence is needed to inform real-world practice. Pragmatic controlled trials are intended to provide such evidence by assessing the effectiveness of medicines and other interventions in real-world settings, as opposed to explanatory trials that assess efficacy in highly controlled settings. Dal-Ré and colleagues (BMC Med 16:49, 2018) recently performed a literature review of studies published between 2014 and 2017 to assess the degree to which studies that self-identified as pragmatic were truly so. The authors found that over one-third of randomized controlled trials of drugs and biologics that were self-labeled as pragmatic used placebo controls (as opposed to usual care), tested medicines before licensing, or were conducted in a single site. Further, they proposed that, in order to improve the reliability of the 'pragmatic' label, investigators should assess their trials using the PRECIS-2 tool upon submission to funders, ethics boards, or journals. We appreciate the value of PRECIS-2 as an indicator to assess the pragmatic versus explanatory features in a trial, and we herein highlight the potential challenges and opportunities that may arise with its systematic and widespread use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Psychology 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 14 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,575,837
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,266
of 3,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,435
of 336,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#35
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.