Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) mimic usual clinical practice and they are critical to inform decision-making by patients, clinicians and policy-makers in real-world settings. Pragmatic RCTs assess effectiveness of available medicines, while explanatory RCTs assess efficacy of investigational medicines. Explanatory and pragmatic are the extremes of a continuum. This debate article seeks to evaluate and provide recommendation on how to characterize pragmatic RCTs in light of the current landscape of RCTs. It is supported by findings from a PubMed search conducted in August 2017, which retrieved 615 RCTs self-labeled in their titles as “pragmatic” or “naturalistic”. We focused on 89 of these trials that assessed medicines (drugs or biologics). Discussion 36% of these 89 trials were placebo-controlled, performed before licensing of the medicine, or done in a single-center. In our opinion, such RCTs overtly deviate from usual care and pragmatism. It follows, that the use of the term ‘pragmatic’ to describe them, conveys a misleading message to patients and clinicians. Furthermore, many other trials among the 615 coined as ‘pragmatic’ and assessing other types of intervention are plausibly not very pragmatic; however, this is impossible for a reader to tell without access to the full protocol and insider knowledge of the trial conduct. The degree of pragmatism should be evaluated by the trial investigators themselves using the PRECIS-2 tool, a tool that comprises 9 domains, each scored from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). Conclusions To allow for a more appropriate characterization of the degree of pragmatism in clinical research, submissions of RCTs to funders, research ethics committees and to peer-reviewed journals should include a PRECIS-2 tool assessment done by the trial investigators. Clarity and accuracy on the extent to which a RCT is pragmatic will help understand how much it is relevant to real-world practice.

Pragmatic trials are increasingly gaining recognition. However, what pragmatic trials are is frequently misunderstood. They are frequently described superficially by their manifestation and surface only, as studies conducted in “real world” settings, having wide inclusion criteria, and less complicated study procedures. However, these features are neither necessary nor defining characteristics. They also do not guarantee that trials sharing them are useful to inform medical practice. There is a danger of losing sight of the essence of the powerful pragmatic approach. Here we describe the key elements of the pragmatic approach and the close relationship with the original nature of randomized trials. Our aim is to refocus teaching, research and interpretation of evidence, not as a novel approach but as a return towards the essence of pragmatic evidence and the nature of randomized trials. We first go back to the origin of pragmatism in philosophy and its introduction in medicine and revisit the nature of randomized trials in their pure form. We highlight the critical distinction between assessing treatment decisions and understanding the mechanisms of these decisions. We show why the current view on randomized trials in medicine has lost a pragmatic focus, with the explanatory design features blinding and adherence control often seen as defining characteristics or quality criteria of randomized trials. We then highlight common misunderstandings of pragmatic trials and conclude with an overview of their key features to provide pragmatic evidence. Key•Knowing what is form and what is function avoids misconceptions about pragmatic trials.•Trials are not simply pragmatic due to their integration into routine care.•The nature of RCTs is not testing interventions with controls but comparing decisions.•Avoiding blinding or adherence control, often used by explanatory trials, eases conduct but does not define design.•Pragmatic randomized trials compare real-world decisions on practical outcomes.

Over half a century ago, the terms “pragmatic” and “explanatory” were introduced to biomedicine by Schwartz and Lellouch, presenting two distinct conceptual approaches to trial design. Today, we frequently say that there are pragmatic trials and there are explanatory trials. Pragmatic trials inform decision-making in practice, and explanatory trials aim to understand the mechanism of an intervention. They are often perceived as diametral extremes of a continuum. In this commentary, we argue that with the digitalization of health care and clinical research, ways for modern trial designs were paved and new avenues opened, and that there is no such continuum. Since the groundbreaking work of Schwartz and Lellouch, new approaches and methods have become available that allow researchers to address pragmatic and explanatory questions in parallel in the same trial. Emerging availability of routinely collected “real-world” data, development of decentralized trial techniques, and creation of digital biomarkers allow to observe health outcomes with minimal or no interference in real-world care. This overcomes previous limitations to studying mechanisms of interventions in routine care and makes the idea of a continuum obsolete. We argue that pragmatism and explanatorism need to be understood as two distinct but compatible conceptual dimensions to open new perspectives for using novel technologies to design the most informative clinical trials and make better clinical and regulatory decisions. We base our argument on an analysis of the concept of a continuum and highlight its limitations. We review key trial design features and introduce a new concept that sees explanatory design features as fundamental, invasive or noninvasive, or sufficient or insufficient. We describe their impact on pragmatism and explanatorism and show how multidimensional pragmatic explanatory trials that are most useful are possible today. •Modern trial designs and approaches have emerged allowing to address pragmatic and explanatory questions in parallel in the same trial.•Pragmatism and explanatorism are not extremes of a continuum.•Pragmatism and explanatorism need to be understood as two distinct but compatible conceptual dimensions.•Pragmatic trials can include noninvasive explanatory trial design features to not only inform decisions but also to understand the mechanisms of interventions.•Multidimensional trials combining pragmatic and explanatory attitudes that are most useful are now possible by leveraging the digitalization of health care and clinical research.

To propose a tool to assist trialists in making design decisions that are consistent with their trial's stated purpose. 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. 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. 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.

Background First articulated by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be conceptualized along a continuum from more explanatory to more pragmatic. The purpose and intent of the former is to test interventions under ideal contexts, and the purpose and intent of the latter is to test interventions in real-world contexts. The PR agmatic E xplanatory C ontinuum I ndicator S ummary-2 (PRECIS-2) is a validated tool that helps researchers make decisions about the elements of the trial to match the overall purpose and intent of the trial along the continuum. The PRECIS-2 tool has guided the design of hundreds of RCTs. However, a few aspects of the tool would benefit from greater clarity, including its application to provider-focused implementation trials rather than patient-focused intervention trials. Main text We describe the newly developed PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tool, an extension of the PRECIS-2 tool, which has been adapted for trials testing provider-focused strategies. We elaborate on nine domains that can make a provider-focused trial more explanatory or more pragmatic, including eligibility, recruitment, setting, implementation resources, flexibility of provider strategies, flexibility of intervention, data collection, primary outcome, and primary analysis. We detail the complementary roles that researchers and stakeholders play in the trial design phase, with implications for generalizability of trial results to the contexts in which they are intended to be applied. Conclusions The PRECIS-2-PS tool is designed to help research and practice teams plan for provider-focused trials that reflect the overall intent and purpose of the trial. The tool has potential to help advance the science of provider-focused strategies across a range of trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the adoption, integration, and sustainability of provider-focused strategies outside the context of trials.

The pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) tool, initially published in 2009 and revised in 2015, was created to assist trialists to align their design choices with the intended purpose of their randomised controlled trial (RCT): either to guide real-world decisions between alternative interventions (pragmatic) or to test hypotheses about intervention mechanisms by minimising sources of variation (explanatory). There have been many comments, suggestions, and criticisms of PRECIS-2. This summary will be used to facilitate the development of to the next revision, which is PRECIS-3. We used Web of Science to identify all publication types citing PRECIS-2, published between May 2015 and July 2023. Citations were eligible if they contained ‘substantive’ suggestions, comments, or criticism of the PRECIS-2 tool. We defined ‘substantive’ as comments explicitly referencing at least one PRECIS-2 domain or a concept directly linked to an existing or newly proposed domain. Two reviewers independently extracted comments, suggestions, and criticisms, noting their implications for the update. These were discussed among authors to achieve consensus on the interpretation of each comment and its implications for PRECIS-3. The search yielded 885 publications, and after full-text review, 89 articles met the inclusion criteria. Comments pertained to new domains, changes in existing domains, or were relevant across several or all domains. Proposed new domains included assessment of the comparator arm and a domain to describe blinding. There were concerns about scoring eligibility and recruitment domains for cluster trials. Suggested areas for improvement across domains included the need for more scoring guidance for explanatory design choices. Published comments recognise PRECIS-2's success in aiding trialists with pragmatic or explanatory design choices. Enhancing its implementation and widespread use will involve adding new domains, refining domain definitions, and addressing overall tool issues. This citation review offers valuable user feedback, pivotal for shaping the upcoming version of the PRECIS tool, PRECIS-3. •The paper summarises user feedback from trialists relating to the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS)-2 design tool and points toward considerations, which may be needed to develop and refine the next version of the tool.•Developers should consider adding assessments of blinding and comparator arm design decisions.•Further detail should be given to guide explanatory approaches to design decisions to address the current imbalance, which favors a more pragmatic approach.•Further consideration and research is needed to supplement these review findings to provide guidance for the use of the PRECIS tool for retrospective assessment of design choices.

A typical explanatory RCT is a double-blind phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of an investigational medicine with that of a placebo or an active medication, in which strict eligibility criteria lead to a recruited population of participants of very similar characteristics and where the number of visits and procedures is much higher than in normal clinical practice. [...]as we will show below, the use of the PRECIS-2 tool could be a source of misunderstandings. In usual clinical practice, once the treatment alternatives have been discussed, the physician will agree with the patient—taking into consideration her values and preferences—the best treatment to be prescribed. [...]patients know the specifics of their treatments. [...]we should highlight that open-label pRCTs could perfectly use blinded assessors because these latter do not alter normal clinical practice [21,22].

The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) tool has been widely used to help investigators design randomized trials, facilitating the task of aligning design choices with an explanatory or pragmatic primary trial intention. PRECIS-2 is increasingly being used to retrospectively assess the degree of pragmatism or explanatoriness among published trials within reviews. There is little information on the interrater reliability of the tool and no consensus on the preferred method of achieving an accurate and reliable judgment of trial “pragmatism” when using PRECIS-2 retrospectively. The aims of this study were to assess the level of pragmatism or explanatoriness of trials that cite PRECIS-2 and to assess interrater reliability of PRECIS-2 using different scoring approaches. We compared agreement between two independent ratings within a single pair with agreement between consensus scores reached by two independent pairs of reviewers and whether widening the agreement criteria increased interrater reliability. Thirty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were randomly selected from trials citing the PRECIS-2 tool. Two pairs of reviewers, a clinician paired with a methodologist in each case, were trained and independently scored each trial and reached a consensus score within pairs. Agreement between reviewers within pairs and between consensus scores across pairs was assessed using kappa statistics for each of the nine PRECIS-2 domains. RCTs citing PRECIS-2 had predominantly pragmatic design features. Interrater reliability within pairs was low across all domains, with the highest levels found in the two domains of analysis (0.32) and follow-up (0.33). Agreement across pairs on the consensus scores was similarly low. Agreement between reviewers and reviewer pairs was above 70% when agreement was reclassified as “within 1-point difference on the scoring scale” for eight domains, but no improvement was obtained for the remaining domain. Trials citing PRECIS-2 tend to have predominantly pragmatic design features. When using PRECIS-2 to retrospectively score trial publications, agreement between consensus scores across pairs of reviewers was no better than agreement within pairs. Reconfiguring the PRECIS scoring scale and improving scoring guidance may provide a more meaningful, easily interpreted measure of “pragmatism” for trialists wishing to use PRECIS-2 as a review tool. The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) tool is designed to help researchers match their design decisions to the intended purpose of their trial. The intention of a trial can be “explanatory,” which improves our understanding of how an intervention works, or “pragmatic,” which supports decision-making in health care. Increasingly, the tool has been used for a secondary purpose: in systematic reviews. Here the tool is used to judge the level of “pragmatism” or “explanatoriness” of trials included in the review to aid the understanding of trial results. However, there is debate on the most reliable means of making this judgment. Sometimes judgements are made using one reviewer; other times, multiple reviewers. Our study evaluated interrater reliability of two methods of scoring trial publications using PRECIS-2: individual reviewer scores and pairs of reviewers agreeing on a consensus score. We also found that neither method we tested produced a reliable judgment using PRECIS-2, and the scores from two reviewers agreeing on a consensus were no more reliable than scores from a single reviewer. We performed an additional analysis that showed that simplifying the scoring from the original five-point scale to a three-point scale may give a more reliable judgment of the “pragmatism” or “explanatioriness” of published trials. This simpler method of scoring should be encouraged for retrospective use of PRECIS-2 in systematic reviews. •There is ongoing debate as to the most reliable method to assess “pragmatism” in published trials.•The reliability of PRECIS-2 in judging published trials is poor, regardless of number of reviewers•Reliability improves by moving to a 3-point scoring scale when scoring published trials

PurposeTo assess, with all available trial information, whether the assessment of the PRECIS-2 nine domains could provide a clear distinction between medicine masked pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) and open-label pRCTs.MethodsA search was conducted of participant-level pRCTs on medicines published on 25 influential medical journals in July 2018–December 2019. All pre-licensing (phases 1–3) and cluster pRCTs were excluded. All trials’ available reports were searched through the published article information, Google Scholar, and trial websites. Instead of providing a score to each PRECIS-2 domain, these were classified as E (explanatory), N (neutral), or P (pragmatic).ResultsOf 128 pRCTs, 18 (14%) were participant-level pRCTs on medicines. The full trial protocol was available for 14 trials; 12 had published the protocol and nine had additional reports published. All trials were prospectively registered, and none was funded by industry. Ten and eight were masked and open-label trials, respectively. Masked pRCTS had 34% of pragmatic and 60% of explanatory domains; open-label pRCTS had 45% pragmatic and 45% explanatory domains. Among the 10 masked trials, only one had a majority of five pragmatic domains; among the eight open-label trials, four had a majority of six or five pragmatic domains. “Follow-up” was considered explanatory in the 18 pRCTs; “primary analysis” was pragmatic in 17 pRCTs.ConclusionThe PRECIS-2 tool seems not to be sensitive enough to clearly discriminate between medicine masked pRCTs and open-label pRCTs. When conducting systematic reviews, it is suggested that the PRECIS-2 tool should not be used to support placing masked trials in the pragmatic side of the explanatory/pragmatic continuum.

Identifying pragmatic trials from among all randomized trials is challenging because of inconsistent reporting. Our objective was to develop and validate a search filter to identify reports of pragmatic trials from Ovid MEDLINE. Two sets of known and probable pragmatic trial records were analyzed using text mining to generate candidate terms. Two large population sets comprising clinical trials and explanatory trials were used to select discriminating terms. Various combinations of terms were tested iteratively to achieve optimal search performance. Two externally derived sets were used to validate sensitivity and specificity of the derived filters. Our validated sensitivity-maximizing filter (combines trial design terms with terms relating to attributes of pragmatic trials) retrieves over 42,000 records in MEDLINE and has sensitivity of 46.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.2 to 55.7%) and estimated specificity of 98.1% (95% CI 93.4 to 99.8%). Search performance is superior to other ad hoc filters for pragmatic trials. The Cochrane search for randomized trials has much better sensitivity (98.2%), but poorer specificity (1.9%) and retrieves 4.5 million records. A highly specific filter (low false positive rate) with moderate sensitivity is available for identifying reports of trials more likely to be pragmatic.