Characteristics, reporting, risk of bias and pragmatism in prehospital emergency care randomised trials from 2010 to 2024: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Introduction Prehospital emergency care (PEC) requires rapid evidence-based decisions to maximise the effectiveness of care and to improve clinical outcomes. There are multiple challenges related to clinical research performed in the PEC setting. The aim of our study is to systematically review and assess the characteristics, quality of reporting, risk of bias and pragmatism in recent PEC trials, thereby identifying potential gaps and strengths that can guide the design of future prehospital studies. Methods and analysis We will systematically search databases MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify all randomised controlled trials conducted in the field of PEC and published in English language between 2010 and 2024. No restrictions will be made to the participants, interventions and outcomes. Risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The level of pragmatism will be assessed using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 score. Exploratory data analysis will be used to investigate and summarise main patterns. Differences in characteristics between PEC fields, study designs, publication year and associations between pragmatism levels, risk of bias and quality of reporting will be the primary focus. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical concerns directly relevant to this review. This study has been previously registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/rzn9j). The manuscript will be submitted for publication to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMJ Open
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-102724
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Characteristics, reporting, risk of bias and pragmatism in prehospital emergency care randomised trials from 2010 to 2024: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

BMJ Open
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Characteristics, reporting, risk of bias and pragmatism in prehospital emergency care randomised trials from 2010 to 2024: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

article en

Abstract

Introduction Prehospital emergency care (PEC) requires rapid evidence-based decisions to maximise the effectiveness of care and to improve clinical outcomes. There are multiple challenges related to clinical research performed in the PEC setting. The aim of our study is to systematically review and assess the characteristics, quality of reporting, risk of bias and pragmatism in recent PEC trials, thereby identifying potential gaps and strengths that can guide the design of future prehospital studies. Methods and analysis We will systematically search databases MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify all randomised controlled trials conducted in the field of PEC and published in English language between 2010 and 2024. No restrictions will be made to the participants, interventions and outcomes. Risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The level of pragmatism will be assessed using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 score. Exploratory data analysis will be used to investigate and summarise main patterns. Differences in characteristics between PEC fields, study designs, publication year and associations between pragmatism levels, risk of bias and quality of reporting will be the primary focus. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical concerns directly relevant to this review. This study has been previously registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/rzn9j). The manuscript will be submitted for publication to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal.

BMJ OpenVol. 15(10)
Obuda University (HU), University of Bern (CH), Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH), Corvinus University of Budapest (HU), University of Basel (CH), University Hospital of Basel (CH), OST - Ostschweizer Fachhochschule (CH), University of Applied Sciences St. Gallen (CH), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE), University of Pecs (HU), Stanford University (US)
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Openalex Percentile: Top 42%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.