↓ Skip to main content

The need for pragmatic clinical trials in low and middle income settings – taking essential neonatal interventions delivered as part of inpatient care as an illustrative example

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
The need for pragmatic clinical trials in low and middle income settings – taking essential neonatal interventions delivered as part of inpatient care as an illustrative example
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0556-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike English, Jamlick Karumbi, Michuki Maina, Jalemba Aluvaala, Archna Gupta, Merrick Zwarenstein, Newton Opiyo

Abstract

Pragmatic randomized trials aim to examine the effects of interventions in the full spectrum of patients seen by clinicians who receive routine care. Such trials should be employed in parallel with efforts to implement many interventions which appear promising but where evidence of effectiveness is limited. We illustrate this need taking the case of essential interventions to reduce inpatient neonatal mortality in low and middle income countries (LMIC) but suggest the arguments are applicable in most clinical areas. A set of basic interventions have been defined, based on available evidence, that could substantially reduce early neonatal deaths if successfully implemented at scale within district and sub-district hospitals in LMIC. However, we illustrate that there remain many gaps in the evidence available to guide delivery of many inpatient neonatal interventions, that existing evidence is often from high income settings and that it frequently indicates uncertainty in the magnitude or even direction of estimates of effect. Furthermore generalizing results to LMIC where conditions include very high patient staff ratios, absence of even basic technologies, and a reliance on largely empiric management is problematic. Where there is such uncertainty over the effectiveness of interventions in different contexts or in the broad populations who might receive the intervention in routine care settings pragmatic trials that preserve internal validity while promoting external validity should be increasingly employed. Many interventions are introduced without adequate evidence of their effectiveness in the routine settings to which they are introduced. Global efforts are needed to support pragmatic research to establish the effectiveness in routine care of many interventions intended to reduce mortality or morbidity in LMIC. Such research should be seen as complementary to efforts to optimize implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 October 2022.
All research outputs
#6,955,211
of 23,515,383 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,528
of 3,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,296
of 396,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#34
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,515,383 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 396,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.