Sharmilee M Nyenhuis1, Andrea J Apter2, Michael Schatz3, Jerry A Krishnan1,4. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Section of Allergy and Immunology, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Allergy, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, San Diego, California. 4. Population Health Sciences Program, University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Comparative efficacy trials are designed to evaluate the harms and benefits of health care in a research environment. There is increasing interest in the results of comparative effectiveness trials, which are intended to fill gaps in evidence to inform decision-making in real-life clinical environments. The objective of this report is to review various tools to classify trials along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum. RECENT FINDINGS: Three tools [Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS), PRECIS-2, and PRAgmatic Clinical Trial Assessment Scale (PRACTAS)] are available that use a star diagram to illustrate where each element of a clinical trial design falls along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum (e.g., selectivity of eligibility criteria, supports to promote participant adherence). The number and type of design element to be classified varies (e.g., 10 elements for PRECIS and PRACTAS vs. nine elements for PRECIS-2; only the PRACTAS tool includes stakeholder engagement). There is substantial interrater reliability when using all three tools and interrater reliability varies across the different design elements (intraclass correlation of coefficient 0.4-0.8). SUMMARY: The PRECIS, PRECIS-2, and PRACTAS tools are options when classifying trials along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum. Researchers and decision-making stakeholders are likely to disagree about the extent to which clinical trials employ efficacy or effectiveness designs.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Comparative efficacy trials are designed to evaluate the harms and benefits of health care in a research environment. There is increasing interest in the results of comparative effectiveness trials, which are intended to fill gaps in evidence to inform decision-making in real-life clinical environments. The objective of this report is to review various tools to classify trials along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum. RECENT FINDINGS: Three tools [Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS), PRECIS-2, and PRAgmatic Clinical Trial Assessment Scale (PRACTAS)] are available that use a star diagram to illustrate where each element of a clinical trial design falls along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum (e.g., selectivity of eligibility criteria, supports to promote participant adherence). The number and type of design element to be classified varies (e.g., 10 elements for PRECIS and PRACTAS vs. nine elements for PRECIS-2; only the PRACTAS tool includes stakeholder engagement). There is substantial interrater reliability when using all three tools and interrater reliability varies across the different design elements (intraclass correlation of coefficient 0.4-0.8). SUMMARY: The PRECIS, PRECIS-2, and PRACTAS tools are options when classifying trials along the efficacy to effectiveness continuum. Researchers and decision-making stakeholders are likely to disagree about the extent to which clinical trials employ efficacy or effectiveness designs.
Authors: Tracy A Lieu; David Au; Jerry A Krishnan; Marc Moss; Harry Selker; Andrea Harabin; Virginia Taggart; Alfred Connors Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kirsty Loudon; Merrick Zwarenstein; Frank M Sullivan; Peter T Donnan; Ildikó Gágyor; Hans J S M Hobbelen; Fernando Althabe; Jerry A Krishnan; Shaun Treweek Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Bridget Gaglio; Gary Bennett; Gerald J Jerome; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; David B Sarwer; Lawrence Appel; Graham Colditz; Thomas A Wadden; Barbara Wells Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 3.402
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