Cited by 16Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation SciencePain Management and Opioid Use

Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials and Learning Health Systems in Pain Medicine

Open access
Salmasi, Vafi, Terkawi, Abdullah Sulieman, Mackey, Sean C.·2023·Anesthesiology Clinics

Abstract

Large randomized clinical trials or aggregates of clinical trials represent the highest levels of clinical evidence because they minimize different sources of confounding and bias. The current review provides an in-depth discussion of the challenges faced and methods we can use to overcome these obstacles to tailor novel designs of pragmatic effectiveness trials to pain medicine. The authors describe their experiences with an open-source learning health system to collect high-quality evidence and conduct pragmatic clinical trials within a busy academic pain center.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.anclin.2023.03.010

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Effective in-house electronic data capture could overcome persistent limitations in corrections settings studies, such as small sample sizes, sampling bias, measurement limitations, and variability in facilitator quality.

    “Effective in-house electronic data capture could transcend persistent limitations in corrections settings studies, such as small sample sizes, sampling bias, measurement limitations, and variability in the quality of facilitators.”

    From Pain in US corrections settings: the promise of digital solutions for better data and treatment access (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    The section on high-quality, real-world data collection says that a system embedded in routine care can enable larger-scale trials and collect needed outcome measures. The paper discusses pain-medicine studies, not corrections settings, and does not say that electronic data capture would overcome sampling bias or variability in facilitator quality. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]C. G, J. S RE. Large simple trials and knowledge generation in a learning health system. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine; 2013. 24830060

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salmasi, V., Terkawi, A. S., & Mackey, S. C.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Salmasi, Vafi
Venue
Anesthesiology Clinics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
503-517
ISSN
1932-2275 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362721616
Cited by
16
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Anesthesiology Clinics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23NS120039)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
pragmatic trials, comparative effectiveness research, learning health systems, pain medicine, randomized controlled trials, trial design challenges, confounding and bias
MeSH terms
Learning Health System, Humans, Informed Consent, Pain, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review