Dissemination and Implementation Science, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd., Room 6144, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2012 Jun;47(3 Pt 1):1051-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01347.x. Epub 2011 Nov 2.
To characterize Practice-Based Opportunities for Weight Reduction (POWER) trials along the pragmatic-explanatory continuum.
The POWER trials consist of three individual studies that target obesity treatment in primary care settings.
Using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria, nine reviewers independently scored each trial.
Average and median ratings, inter-rater reliability, and relationships to additional ratings of the extent to which study designs were explanatory (i.e., efficacy) versus pragmatic (i.e., practical) and related to external validity were determined.
One trial was consistently rated as being significantly more pragmatic than the others (R(2) =0.43, p< .001), although all three were in the moderate range on the PRECIS scales. Ratings varied across PRECIS dimensions, being most pragmatic on comparison condition and primary outcome. Raters, although undergoing training and using identical definitions, scored their own study as more pragmatic than the other studies/interventions.
These results highlight the need for more comprehensive reporting on PRECIS and related criteria for research translation. The PRECIS criteria provide a richer understanding of the POWER studies. It is not clear whether the original criteria are sufficient to provide a comprehensive profile.
根据实用-解释连续体对基于实践的减重机会（POWER）试验进行特征描述。
POWER 试验由三项针对初级保健环境中肥胖治疗的独立研究组成。
使用实用-解释连续体指标综合（PRECIS）标准，九位评审员独立对每项试验进行评分。
平均和中位数评分、评分者间可靠性，以及与研究设计在多大程度上具有解释性（即疗效）和实用性（即实际）以及与外部有效性的关系的额外评分的关系被确定。
尽管所有三项试验在 PRECIS 量表上均处于中等范围，但其中一项试验始终被评为比其他试验明显更具实用性（R(2) =0.43，p<.001）。评分在 PRECIS 维度上存在差异，在对照条件和主要结局方面最具实用性。评审员虽然经过培训并使用相同的定义，但将自己的研究评为比其他研究/干预更具实用性。
这些结果突出表明需要更全面地报告 PRECIS 及相关研究转化标准。PRECIS 标准为 POWER 研究提供了更深入的理解。目前尚不清楚原始标准是否足以提供全面的概况。
