The value of pragmatic and observational studies in health care and public health

Evidence-based practice is an important component of health care service delivery. However, there is a tendency, embodied in tools such as Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, to focus principally on the classification of study design, at the expense of a detailed assessment of the strengths and limitations of the individual study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and in particular the classical “explanatory” RCT, have a privileged place in the hierarchy of evidence. However, classical RCTs have substantial limitations, most notably a lack of generalizability, which limit their direct applicability to clinical practice implementation. Pragmatic and observational studies can provide an invaluable perspective into real-world applicability. This evidence could be used more widely to complement ideal-condition results from classical RCTs, following the principle of triangulation. In this review article, we discuss several types of pragmatic and observational studies that could be used in this capacity. We discuss their particular strengths and how their limitations may be overcome and provide real-life examples by means of illustration.

[1]  G. Macfarlane,et al.  The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registers in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) study: Protocol for a prospective cohort study of the long-term safety and quality of life outcomes of biologic treatment , 2015, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[2]  S. Kalkman,et al.  The Social Value of Pragmatic Trials , 2017, Bioethics.

[3]  Nikolaos A. Patsopoulos,et al.  A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials , 2011, Dialogues in clinical neuroscience.

[4]  Sonja J Lewis,et al.  The importance and impact of evidence-based medicine. , 2004, Journal of managed care pharmacy : JMCP.

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

[6]  T. Pring.  Ask a silly question: two decades of troublesome trials. , 2004, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[7]  J. Hughes.  Ethical concerns about non-active conditions in smoking cessation trials and methods to decrease such concerns. , 2009, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[8]  L. Aucott,et al.  Diverging prevalences and different risk factors for childhood asthma and eczema: a cross-sectional study , 2015, BMJ Open.

[9]  Ralph B D'Agostino,et al.  The randomized registry trial--the next disruptive technology in clinical research? , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  C. Muntaner,et al.  Locating Politics in Social Epidemiology , 2012 .

[12]  E. Dennison,et al.  The BSRBR-RA at 15 years. , 2016, Rheumatology.

[13]  J. Concato,et al.  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  N. Denzin.  Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook , 1978 .

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

[16]  S. Semple,et al.  Secondhand smoke in cars: assessing children's potential exposure during typical journey conditions , 2012, Tobacco Control.

[17]  David Robertson.  The Penguin dictionary of politics , 1993 .

[18]  P. Austin.  An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[19]  Christopher B. Granger,et al.  Registry-based randomized clinical trials—a new clinical trial paradigm , 2015, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[20]  M Egger,et al.  The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[21]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  GrADe : what is “ quality of evidence ” and why is it important to clinicians ? rATING quALITY of evIDeNCe AND STreNGTH of reCommeNDATIoNS , 2022 .

[22]  NIMH-Funded Pragmatic Trials: Moving On , 2010, Neuropsychopharmacology.

[23]  Mats Lundström,et al.  Use of 13 disease registries in 5 countries demonstrates the potential to use outcome data to improve health care's value. , 2012, Health affairs.

[24]  J. Greene,et al.  Assessing the Gold Standard--Lessons from the History of RCTs. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  O. Skjønsberg,et al.  How representative are clinical study patients with asthma or COPD for a larger "real life" population of patients with obstructive lung disease? , 2005, Respiratory medicine.

[26]  P. Donnan,et al.  The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  Richard Smith,et al.  Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals , 2006, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[28]  P. Crome,et al.  The PREDICT (increasing the participation of the elderly in clinical trials) study: the charter and beyond , 2014, Expert review of clinical pharmacology.

[29]  Dawn Everington,et al.  Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  M. Bradburn,et al.  SABRE: a multicentre randomised control trial of nebulised hypertonic saline in infants hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis , 2014, Thorax.

[31]  Philip J. Landrigan,et al.  The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children , 2004 .

[32]  M. Fortin,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials: Do They Have External Validity for Patients With Multiple Comorbidities? , 2006, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[33]  J. Vandenbroucke,et al.  Commentary: regression discontinuity design: let's give it a try to evaluate medical and public health interventions. , 2014, Epidemiology.

[34]  L. Aucott,et al.  Changes in the relationship between asthma and associated risk factors over fifty years , 2017, Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.

[35]  Ian Harvey,et al.  A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[36]  M. Barnish,et al.  Potential Benefit of Singing for People with Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review. , 2016, Journal of Parkinson's disease.

[37]  S. Zhan,et al.  [The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose]. , 2018, Zhonghua liu xing bing xue za zhi = Zhonghua liuxingbingxue zazhi.

[38]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: Stratified medicine research , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[40]  M. Barnish,et al.  High-heeled shoes and musculoskeletal injuries: a narrative systematic review , 2016, BMJ Open.

[41]  D J Torgerson,et al.  Pragmatic trials: lab meets bedside , 2019, The British journal of dermatology.

[42]  N. Dreyer,et al.  Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide , 2010 .

[43]  C. Vardavas,et al.  A systematic review of secondhand smoke exposure in a car , 2015, Chronic respiratory disease.

[44]  D. Price,et al.  The Brussels Declaration: the need for change in asthma management , 2008, European Respiratory Journal.

[45]  D. Griffiths,et al.  Precautionary principle , 2011, BDJ.