OBJECTIVE: The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool was designed to classify randomized clinical trials (RCT) as being more pragmatic or explanatory. We modified the PRECIS tool (called PRECIS-Review tool [PR-tool]) to grade individual trials and systematic reviews of trials. This should help policy makers, clinicians, researchers, and guideline developers to judge the applicability of individual trials and systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: To illustrate the usefulness and applicability of the PR-tool, we applied it to two systematic reviews. Each included RCT was scored on the 10 PRECIS domains on a scale of 1-5. After this scoring, a 10-domain average for each individual trial and for the systematic review a single domain average and an overall average was calculated. RESULTS: One review was more pragmatic with an average score of 3.7 (range, 2.9-4.6) on our PR-tool, whereas the other review was more explanatory with an average score of 1.9 (range, 1.1-3.3). The results also suggest that the included studies within each systematic review were rather uniform in their approach, although some domains seemed more prone to heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The PR-tool provides a useful estimate that gives insight by estimating quantitatively how pragmatic each RCT in the review is, which methodological domains are pragmatic or explanatory, and how pragmatic the review is.
OBJECTIVE: The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool was designed to classify randomized clinical trials (RCT) as being more pragmatic or explanatory. We modified the PRECIS tool (called PRECIS-Review tool [PR-tool]) to grade individual trials and systematic reviews of trials. This should help policy makers, clinicians, researchers, and guideline developers to judge the applicability of individual trials and systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: To illustrate the usefulness and applicability of the PR-tool, we applied it to two systematic reviews. Each included RCT was scored on the 10 PRECIS domains on a scale of 1-5. After this scoring, a 10-domain average for each individual trial and for the systematic review a single domain average and an overall average was calculated. RESULTS: One review was more pragmatic with an average score of 3.7 (range, 2.9-4.6) on our PR-tool, whereas the other review was more explanatory with an average score of 1.9 (range, 1.1-3.3). The results also suggest that the included studies within each systematic review were rather uniform in their approach, although some domains seemed more prone to heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The PR-tool provides a useful estimate that gives insight by estimating quantitatively how pragmatic each RCT in the review is, which methodological domains are pragmatic or explanatory, and how pragmatic the review is.
Authors: Michael A Sanchez; Borsika A Rabin; Bridget Gaglio; Michelle Henton; M Khair Elzarrad; Peyton Purcell; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: David M Levine; Stella Savarimuthu; Allison Squires; Joseph Nicholson; Melanie Jay Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: L Susan Wieland; Brian M Berman; Douglas G Altman; Jürgen Barth; Lex M Bouter; Christopher R D'Adamo; Klaus Linde; David Moher; C Daniel Mullins; Shaun Treweek; Sean Tunis; Danielle A van der Windt; Merrick Zwarenstein; Claudia Witt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Keith A Anderson; Holly Dabelko-Schoeny; Sokha Koeuth; Katherine Marx; Laura N Gitlin; Joseph E Gaugler Journal: Home Health Care Serv Q Date: 2020-08-31
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
Authors: Daniel J Bratton; Andrew J Nunn; Fenella Wojnarowska; Gudula Kirtschig; Anna Sandell; Hywel C Williams Journal: Trials Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Claudia M Witt; Eric Manheimer; Richard Hammerschlag; Rainer Lüdtke; Lixing Lao; Sean R Tunis; Brian M Berman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240