Cargando…

Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials

To assess the pragmatism of published critical care randomized controlled trials self-described as pragmatic using a validated tool. DATA SOURCES: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Online database and PubMed interface from inception to November 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a system...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palakshappa, Jessica A., Gibbs, Kevin W., Lannan, Margo T., Cranford, Anna R., Taylor, Stephanie P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9312432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35923590
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000738
_version_ 1784753845184757760
author Palakshappa, Jessica A.
Gibbs, Kevin W.
Lannan, Margo T.
Cranford, Anna R.
Taylor, Stephanie P.
author_facet Palakshappa, Jessica A.
Gibbs, Kevin W.
Lannan, Margo T.
Cranford, Anna R.
Taylor, Stephanie P.
author_sort Palakshappa, Jessica A.
collection PubMed
description To assess the pragmatism of published critical care randomized controlled trials self-described as pragmatic using a validated tool. DATA SOURCES: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Online database and PubMed interface from inception to November 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for critically ill adults that self-identified as pragmatic in title or abstract. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction in duplicate; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Pragmatism was assessed independently in duplicate by trained reviewers using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2), a validated tool designed to represent how explanatory/pragmatic a trial is on the pragmatic to explanatory continuum. Trials were scored in nine domains on a 5-point continuum (from 1 = very explanatory to 5 = very pragmatic). Discrepancies of greater than 2 points were adjudicated by consensus discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search resulted in 284 studies; 56 met eligibility criteria. Forty-one of the trials had a discrepancy in at least one domain that required consensus discussion, most commonly in domains of eligibility and follow-up. Twelve studies (21.4%) were scored as “overall pragmatic,” defined as score of greater than 4 in five domains provided the scores in the remaining domains were three. The overall PRECIS-2 score of self-identified pragmatic studies increased from 1995 to 2021 suggesting increasing pragmatism over time. Pragmatic trials were more likely to have a waiver of informed consent (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The number and pragmatism of self-identified pragmatic trials have increased, particularly in the past decade. However, less than one-quarter of these trials that use the term pragmatic in title or abstract were retrospectively rated as pragmatic. Our results support the concept that trials are designed on a spectrum of pragmatic to explanatory. Advances in the design and reporting of critical care trials are needed to ensure their real-world applicability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9312432
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93124322022-08-02 Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials Palakshappa, Jessica A. Gibbs, Kevin W. Lannan, Margo T. Cranford, Anna R. Taylor, Stephanie P. Crit Care Explor Systematic Review To assess the pragmatism of published critical care randomized controlled trials self-described as pragmatic using a validated tool. DATA SOURCES: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Online database and PubMed interface from inception to November 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for critically ill adults that self-identified as pragmatic in title or abstract. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction in duplicate; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Pragmatism was assessed independently in duplicate by trained reviewers using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2), a validated tool designed to represent how explanatory/pragmatic a trial is on the pragmatic to explanatory continuum. Trials were scored in nine domains on a 5-point continuum (from 1 = very explanatory to 5 = very pragmatic). Discrepancies of greater than 2 points were adjudicated by consensus discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search resulted in 284 studies; 56 met eligibility criteria. Forty-one of the trials had a discrepancy in at least one domain that required consensus discussion, most commonly in domains of eligibility and follow-up. Twelve studies (21.4%) were scored as “overall pragmatic,” defined as score of greater than 4 in five domains provided the scores in the remaining domains were three. The overall PRECIS-2 score of self-identified pragmatic studies increased from 1995 to 2021 suggesting increasing pragmatism over time. Pragmatic trials were more likely to have a waiver of informed consent (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The number and pragmatism of self-identified pragmatic trials have increased, particularly in the past decade. However, less than one-quarter of these trials that use the term pragmatic in title or abstract were retrospectively rated as pragmatic. Our results support the concept that trials are designed on a spectrum of pragmatic to explanatory. Advances in the design and reporting of critical care trials are needed to ensure their real-world applicability. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9312432/ /pubmed/35923590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000738 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Palakshappa, Jessica A.
Gibbs, Kevin W.
Lannan, Margo T.
Cranford, Anna R.
Taylor, Stephanie P.
Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials
title Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials
title_full Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials
title_fullStr Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials
title_short Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials
title_sort systematic review of the “pragmatism” of pragmatic critical care trials
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9312432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35923590
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000738
work_keys_str_mv AT palakshappajessicaa systematicreviewofthepragmatismofpragmaticcriticalcaretrials
AT gibbskevinw systematicreviewofthepragmatismofpragmaticcriticalcaretrials
AT lannanmargot systematicreviewofthepragmatismofpragmaticcriticalcaretrials
AT cranfordannar systematicreviewofthepragmatismofpragmaticcriticalcaretrials
AT taylorstephaniep systematicreviewofthepragmatismofpragmaticcriticalcaretrials