Literature DB >> 14565915

[A critical review of the pragmatic clinical trial].

Carles Vallvé1.   

Abstract

Schwartz and Lellouch proposed in 1967 to differentiate between pragmatic and explanatory clinical trials. The pragmatic approach has been understood in different ways and has also been the object of some criticism. Yet different authors have asked to perform pragmatic clinical trials, especially in issues requiring a therapeutical decision. In order to clarify the present situation of the pragmatic trial, a bibliographic review has been performed. Between 1976 and 2002, 95 original articles on clinical trials conducted following a pragmatic design have been found. Only four followed strictly the approach developed by Schwartz et al. In a pragmatic clinical trial, it is usually not possible to blind the interventions and for this reason randomization is imperfect. This limitation casts doubts about the validity of the frequentistic methods in the intention-to-treat evaluation of the results of a pragmatic trial. This experimental approach demands an evaluation according to the decision-making theory. Following the Bayes theorem, the credibility and the previous probability of a hypothesis conditions its posterior probability. It has been agreed that Bayesian statistics is a suitable instrument for the evaluation of a pragmatic clinical trial, but the lack of adequate informatics' programs has limited seriously its application. Recently,some new programs (WinBUGS, TreeAge) have been developed and applied to the decision analysis in some primary care therapeutic questions. It seems possible to predict that, thanks to the new informatics'programs on Bayesian statistics, the pragmatic clinical trial will experience, in the short term, an important revival.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14565915     DOI: 10.1016/s0025-7753(03)73957-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Clin (Barc)        ISSN: 0025-7753            Impact factor:   1.725


  5 in total

1.  What kind of randomized trials do we need?

Authors:  Merrick Zwarenstein; Shaun Treweek
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-04-16       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Are explanatory trials ethical? Shifting the burden of justification in clinical trial design.

Authors:  Kirstin Borgerson
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2013-08

Review 3.  A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Spencer Phillips Hey; Merrick Zwarenstein; Jennifer Zhe Zhang; Hayden P Nix; Jamie C Brehaut; Joanne E McKenzie; Steve McDonald; Charles Weijer; Dean A Fergusson; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-03-28       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement.

Authors:  Merrick Zwarenstein; Shaun Treweek; Joel J Gagnier; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Brian Haynes; Andrew D Oxman; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-11-11

Review 5.  Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Merrick Zwarenstein
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.