Literature DB >> 33789151

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.

Stuart G Nicholls1, Kelly Carroll2, Spencer Phillips Hey3, Merrick Zwarenstein4, Jennifer Zhe Zhang5, Hayden P Nix6, Jamie C Brehaut7, Joanne E McKenzie8, Steve McDonald8, Charles Weijer9, Dean A Fergusson10, Monica Taljaard7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text.
RESULTS: 4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term "pragmatic" was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Data quality; Database searching; Intervention; Pragmatic trials; Registration; Reporting; Trial design

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33789151      PMCID: PMC8996736          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.021

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


  64 in total

1.  Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010.

Authors:  Robert M Califf; Deborah A Zarin; Judith M Kramer; Rachel E Sherman; Laura H Aberle; Asba Tasneem
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review.

Authors:  Monica Taljaard; Karla Hemming; Lena Shah; Bruno Giraudeau; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Charles Weijer
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 3.  Assessment of Pragmatism in Recently Published Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Perrine Janiaud; Rafael Dal-Ré; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Assessing Genitourinary Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Sufficiency Using Archived Trial Data.

Authors:  Kristian Stensland; Samuel Kaffenberger; David Canes; Matthew Galsky; Ted Skolarus; Alireza Moinzadeh
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2020-07

5.  The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues.

Authors:  Deborah A Zarin; Tony Tse; Rebecca J Williams; Robert M Califf; Nicholas C Ide
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Merrick Zwarenstein; Jamie C Brehaut; Charles Weijer; Spencer P Hey; Cory E Goldstein; Ian D Graham; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Joanne E McKenzie; Dean A Fergusson; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Ferrán Catalá-López; Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent; Lisa Caulley; Brian Hutton; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; David Moher; Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study.

Authors:  Tammy J Clifford; Nicholas J Barrowman; David Moher
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-09-04       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 9.  Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis.

Authors:  Christopher W Jones; Lara Handler; Karen E Crowell; Lukas G Keil; Mark A Weaver; Timothy F Platts-Mills
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-10-29

Review 10.  Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christopher W Jones; Lukas G Keil; Wesley C Holland; Melissa C Caughey; Timothy F Platts-Mills
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  8 in total

1.  Methodological challenges in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: Opportunities for improvement.

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

Review 2.  A review identified challenges distinguishing primary reports of randomized trials for meta-research: A proposal for improved reporting.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Steve McDonald; Joanne E McKenzie; Kelly Carroll; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 7.407

3.  Informed consent in pragmatic trials: results from a survey of trials published 2014-2019.

Authors:  Jennifer Zhe Zhang; Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Hayden Peter Nix; Cory E Goldstein; Spencer Phillips Hey; Jamie C Brehaut; Paul C McLean; Charles Weijer; Dean A Fergusson; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 5.926

Review 4.  Review of pragmatic trials found that multiple primary outcomes are common but so too are discrepancies between protocols and final reports.

Authors:  Pascale Nevins; Shelley Vanderhout; Kelly Carroll; Stuart G Nicholls; Seana N Semchishen; Jamie C Brehaut; Dean A Fergusson; Bruno Giraudeau; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 7.407

5.  The representation of Indigenous peoples in chronic disease clinical trials in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.

Authors:  Valerie Umaefulam; Tessa Kleissen; Cheryl Barnabe
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 6.  Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Shelley Vanderhout; Dean A Fergusson; Jonathan A Cook; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Ethical considerations within pragmatic randomized controlled trials in dementia: Results from a literature survey.

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

8.  Update on the clinical trial landscape: analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov registration data, 2000-2020.

Authors:  Gillian Gresham; Jill L Meinert; Arthur G Gresham; Steven Piantadosi; Curtis L Meinert
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 2.728

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.