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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |