Stuart G Nicholls1, Merrick Zwarenstein2, Spencer Phillips Hey3, Bruno Giraudeau4, Marion K Campbell5, Monica Taljaard6. 1. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada. Electronic address: snicholls@ohri.ca. 2. Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 3. Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Université de Tours, Université de Nantes, INSERM, SPHERE U1246, Tours, France; INSERM CIC1415, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France. 5. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 6. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is now more than 50 years since the concepts of explanatory and pragmatic attitudes toward trials were first discussed by Schwartz and Lellouch in their influential 1967 paper. Since then, there has been increasing focus on design aspects that may be consistent with more pragmatic attitudes within clinical trials, and a number of tools developed to assist investigators prospectively think about their trial design. Researchers have subsequently expressed interest in using these tools retrospectively to characterize trials as pragmatic or explanatory. RESULTS: We suggest that recent attempts to retrospectively dichotomize trials solely on the basis of quantitative scoring of trial design features are flawed. Instead, we argue that there is a need to consider both the intent and design when assessing the degree of pragmatism within a trial. CONCLUSION: The practical implication of our suggestion for trial reporting is that investigators should explicitly state the intent of the trial through a clear articulation of the decision that they hope will be informed by the trial results. This should be coupled with a completed PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 assessment (or similar) with an explanation of study design choices to appropriately assess whether the study design is consistent with the study intent. We believe this will assist reviewers and knowledge users in making assessments of trials.
OBJECTIVE: It is now more than 50 years since the concepts of explanatory and pragmatic attitudes toward trials were first discussed by Schwartz and Lellouch in their influential 1967 paper. Since then, there has been increasing focus on design aspects that may be consistent with more pragmatic attitudes within clinical trials, and a number of tools developed to assist investigators prospectively think about their trial design. Researchers have subsequently expressed interest in using these tools retrospectively to characterize trials as pragmatic or explanatory. RESULTS: We suggest that recent attempts to retrospectively dichotomize trials solely on the basis of quantitative scoring of trial design features are flawed. Instead, we argue that there is a need to consider both the intent and design when assessing the degree of pragmatism within a trial. CONCLUSION: The practical implication of our suggestion for trial reporting is that investigators should explicitly state the intent of the trial through a clear articulation of the decision that they hope will be informed by the trial results. This should be coupled with a completed PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 assessment (or similar) with an explanation of study design choices to appropriately assess whether the study design is consistent with the study intent. We believe this will assist reviewers and knowledge users in making assessments of trials.
Authors: Monica Taljaard; Fan Li; Bo Qin; Caroline Cui; Leyi Zhang; Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Susan L Mitchell Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 2.486
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: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Bethea A Kleykamp; Jerry Draper-Rodi; Jan Vollert; Jessica Chan; McKenzie Ferguson; Ewan McNicol; Jules Phalip; Scott R Evans; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Andrew S C Rice Journal: Pain Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Hayden P Nix; Fan Li; Spencer Phillips Hey; Susan L Mitchell; Charles Weijer; Monica Taljaard Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-05-02