Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA; Center for Perioperative Outcomes Research and Transformation, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2020 Nov;98:106171. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106171. Epub 2020 Oct 7.
Over the last decade, randomized studies evaluating outcomes of health care interventions conducted in real-world settings-often termed "pragmatic trials"-have come to be seen as an important means of obtaining relevant, actionable evidence to guide health care decisions. Despite extensive writing on methodological considerations in pragmatic trial design, limited information exists regarding the practical and logistical challenges encountered in carrying out rigorous randomized evaluations in highly representative, real-world contexts.
The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) convened an expert panel in 2017 to examine common tradeoffs in study design and implementation through 3 "case studies" of in-progress, PCORI-funded pragmatic trials. This paper summarizes the findings of this panel, using the 3 examples to illustrate common implementation challenges encountered in pragmatic trials.
Investigators aimed to generate highly generalizable findings that could address real-world clinical decisions; however, practical considerations required that each study incorporate traditionally "explanatory" elements to achieve a "fit-for-purpose" approach to design and implementation. Within individual studies, efforts to balance pragmatic versus explanatory perspectives often involved multiple, diverse aspects of trial design and implementation, and the aspects of design and implementation where investigators reported encountering such tradeoffs varied across the three cases we examined.
Efforts to generate rigorous evidence that is generalizable to "real-world" practice require continuous and iterative efforts to balance "pragmatic" and "explanatory" perspectives. In each study examined, these tradeoffs were guided both by an overriding effort to maintain pragmatism and practical considerations that varied depending on the research question and study context.
在过去的十年中,随机评估真实环境下医疗干预措施结果的研究(通常称为“实用临床试验”)被视为获取相关、可行证据以指导医疗决策的重要手段。尽管在实用临床试验设计方面有大量关于方法学考虑的论述,但在高度代表性的真实环境中进行严格的随机评估所遇到的实际和后勤挑战的相关信息有限。
患者导向医疗结局研究所(PCORI)于 2017 年召集了一个专家小组,通过 3 项正在进行的、PCORI 资助的实用临床试验的“案例研究”来检查研究设计和实施中的常见权衡取舍。本文总结了该小组的调查结果,使用这 3 个例子来说明实用临床试验中常见的实施挑战。
研究人员旨在生成能够解决实际临床决策的高度概括性发现;然而,实际考虑因素要求每项研究都纳入传统的“解释性”元素,以实现适合目的的设计和实施方法。在单个研究中,平衡实用和解释性观点的努力通常涉及试验设计和实施的多个、不同方面,我们研究的三个案例中,研究人员报告在设计和实施方面遇到的权衡取舍各不相同。
为生成可推广到“真实世界”实践的严格证据,需要不断地进行平衡“实用”和“解释”观点的努力。在每个被检查的研究中,这些权衡取舍都受到保持实用性和实际考虑的指导,这些实际考虑因研究问题和研究背景而异。