Literature DB >> 28502810

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 6. Outcome measures in the real world.

Paco M Welsing1, Katrien Oude Rengerink2, Sue Collier3, Laurent Eckert4, Maarten van Smeden2, Antonio Ciaglia5, Gaelle Nachbaur6, Sven Trelle7, Aliki J Taylor8, Matthias Egger9, Iris Goetz10.   

Abstract

Results from pragmatic trials should reflect the comparative treatment effects encountered in patients in real-life clinical practice to guide treatment decisions. Therefore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are relevant to patients, clinical practice, and treatment choices. This sixth article in the series (see Box) discusses different types of outcomes and their suitability for pragmatic trials, design choices for measuring these outcomes, and their implications and challenges. Measuring outcomes in pragmatic trials should not interfere with real-world clinical practice to ensure generalizability of trial results, and routinely collected outcomes should be prioritized. Typical outcomes include mortality, morbidity, functional status, well-being, and resource use. Surrogate endpoints are typically avoided as primary outcome. It is important to measure outcomes over a relevant time horizon and obtain valid and precise results. As pragmatic trials are often open label, a less subjective outcome can reduce bias. Methods that decrease bias or enhance precision of the results, such as standardization and blinding of outcome assessment, should be considered when a high risk of bias or high variability is expected. The selection of outcomes in pragmatic trials should be relevant for decision making and feasible in terms of executing the trial in the context of interest. Therefore, this should be discussed with all stakeholders as early as feasible to ensure the relevance of study results for decision making in clinical practice and the ability to perform the study.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Generalizability; Outcome measurement; Pragmatic trial; Real-world evidence

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28502810     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  8 in total

1.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to improve Initial Medication Adherence to treatments for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in primary care: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial and economic model (the IMA-cRCT study).

Authors:  Alba Sánchez-Viñas; Carmen Corral-Partearroyo; Montserrat Gil-Girbau; M Teresa Peñarrubia-María; Carmen Gallardo-González; María-Del-Carmen Olmos-Palenzuela; Ignacio Aznar-Lou; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Maria Rubio-Valera
Journal:  BMC Prim Care       Date:  2022-07-05

2.  Research and Scholarly Methods: Pragmatic Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Onyeche Oche; Chaorong Wu; Logan T Murry; Korey A Kennelty
Journal:  J Am Coll Clin Pharm       Date:  2021-11-02

3.  Patient and healthcare professional experiences of the Salford Lung Studies: qualitative insights for future effectiveness trials.

Authors:  Kim Gemzoe; Rebecca Crawford; Ann Caress; Sheila McCorkindale; Rebecca Conroy; Susan Collier; Lynda Doward; Renu M Vekaria; Sally Worsley; David A Leather; Elaine Irving
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Much ado about something: a response to "COVID-19: underpowered randomised trials, or no randomised trials?"

Authors:  Noah A Haber; Sarah E Wieten; Emily R Smith; David Nunan
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-11-07       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 5.  Real-World Evidence of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Treatment on Cancer: A Literature-Based Review.

Authors:  Linjia Peng; Ke Zhang; Yujie Li; Lianyu Chen; Huifeng Gao; Hao Chen
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Real-world evidence: How pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic?

Authors:  Rafael Dal-Ré; Perrine Janiaud; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 7.  Rare diseases under different levels of economic analysis: current activities, challenges and perspectives.

Authors:  Sara Cannizzo; Valentina Lorenzoni; Ilaria Palla; Salvatore Pirri; Leopoldo Trieste; Isotta Triulzi; Giuseppe Turchetti
Journal:  RMD Open       Date:  2018-11-12

8.  A Society of General Internal Medicine Position Statement on the Internists' Role in Social Determinants of Health.

Authors:  Elena Byhoff; Shreya Kangovi; Seth A Berkowitz; Matthew DeCamp; Elizabeth Dzeng; Mark Earnest; Cristina M Gonzalez; Sarah Hartigan; Reena Karani; Milad Memari; Brita Roy; Mark D Schwartz; Anna Volerman; Karen DeSalvo
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 5.128

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.