Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a tool to assist trialists in making design decisions that are consistent with their trial's stated purpose. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized trials have been broadly categorized as either having a pragmatic or explanatory attitude. Pragmatic trials seek to answer the question, "Does this intervention work under usual conditions?," whereas explanatory trials are focused on the question, "Can this intervention work under ideal conditions?" Design decisions make a trial more (or less) pragmatic or explanatory, but no tool currently exists to help researchers make the best decisions possible in accordance with their trial's primary goal. During the course of two international meetings, participants with experience in clinical care, research commissioning, health care financing, trial methodology, and reporting defined and refined aspects of trial design that distinguish pragmatic attitudes from explanatory. RESULTS: We have developed a tool (called PRECIS) with 10 key domains and which identifies criteria to help researchers determine how pragmatic or explanatory their trial is. The assessment is summarized graphically. CONCLUSION: We believe that PRECIS is a useful first step toward a tool that can help trialists to ensure that their design decisions are consistent with the stated purpose of the trial.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Clin Epidemiol

Publication Date

05/2009

Volume

62

Pages

464 - 475

Keywords

Clinical Trials as Topic, Consensus, Decision Making, Humans, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design