Scientific Publications Database

Article Title: An analysis of published trials found that current use of pragmatic trial labels is uninformative
Authors: Taljaard, Monica; Nicholls, Stuart G.; Howie, Alison H.; Nix, Hayden P.; Carroll, Kelly; Moon, Paxton M.; Nightingale, Natalie M.; Giraudeau, Bruno; Hey, Spencer P.; Eldridge, Sandra M.; Weijer, Charles; Zwarenstein, Merrick
Journal: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY Volume 151
Date of Publication:2022
Abstract:
Objectives: Randomized trials labelled as pragmatic are attractive to funders, patients, and clinicians as the label implies that the results are directly applicable to clinical care. We examined how authors justify use of the label (e.g., by referring to one or more PRECIS [PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary]-2 domains). Study Design and Setting: We reviewed primary trial reports published 2014-2019, registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and using the pragmatic label anywhere in the report. Results: Among 415 trials, the label was justified by reference to at least one design element in 282 (68.0%); of these, 240 (85.1%) referenced trial characteristics that can be mapped to one or more of the PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly eligibility (91, 32.3%), setting (90, 31.9%), flexibility delivery (89, 31.6%), and organization (75, 26.6%); 42 (14.9%) referenced characteristics that are not PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly type of intervention/comparator (48, 17%), recruitment without consent (22, 7.8%), routinely collected data (22, 7.8%), and cluster randomization (20, 7.1%). Most reports referenced only one or two design elements. Overall, 9/415 (2.2%) provided PRECIS wheels. Conclusion: Current use of pragmatic labels is uninformative. Authors should clarify the decision the trial is intended to support and include a PRECIS-2 table to make the design transparent. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.