A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers.

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.

[1]  D. Stryer,et al.  Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. , 2003, JAMA.

[2]  Cheryl L. L. Carling,et al.  Blind Faith? The Effects of Promoting Active Sick Leave for Back Pain Patients: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial , 2002, Spine.

[3]  D. Sackett,et al.  Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  D. Moher,et al.  Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  B. Sibai,et al.  Low-dose aspirin to prevent preeclampsia in women at high risk. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Merrick Zwarenstein,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of self-supervised and directly observed treatment of tuberculosis , 1998, The Lancet.

[7]  J. Lellouch,et al.  Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. , 1967, Journal of chronic diseases.

[8]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  Clinical Epidemiology: How to Do Clinical Practice Research , 1991 .

[9]  C. Heneghan Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, et al. Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research. 3rd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. , 2006 .

[10]  Jeffrey R. Wilson,et al.  CLASP: a randomised trial of low-dose aspirin for the prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia among 9364 pregnant women , 1994, The Lancet.

[11]  A. Buchan,et al.  *North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Steering Committee. Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis. , 1991 .

[12]  S. Tunis,et al.  A clinical research strategy to support shared decision making. , 2005, Health affairs.

[13]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.

[14]  K. Lohr,et al.  A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.