Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 2. Setting, sites, and investigator selection

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 88, Issue , 2017, Pages 14-20

  Worsley, Sally D ^a   Oude Rengerink, Katrien ^b   Irving, Elaine ^a   Lejeune, Stephane ^c   Mol, Koen ^d   Collier, Sue ^a   Groenwold, Rolf H H ^b   Enters Weijnen, Catherine ^b,e   Egger, Matthias ^f   Rhodes, Thomas ^g  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c EORTC DATA CENTER   (Belgium)

^d Janssen Pharmaceutica NV   (Belgium)

^e Julius Clinical ^*  (Netherlands)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^g MRL   (United States)

Author keywords

Pragmatic; Real world; Research naive; Site selection; Study design; Trial; Usual care

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG USE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; POPULATION AND POPULATION RELATED PHENOMENA; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SITE SELECTION; STUDY DESIGN; VALIDITY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH SURVEY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SAMPLE SIZE;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATA COLLECTION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 85020759003     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Schwartz, D., Lelouch, J., Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chronic Dis 20 (1967), 637–648.
2. Fröbert, O., Lagerqvist, B., Gudnason, T., Thuesen, L., Svensson, R., Olivecrona, G.K., et al. Thrombus Aspiration in ST-Elevation myocardial infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE trial). A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical registry trial based on the Swedish angiography and angioplasty registry (SCAAR) platform. Study design and rationale. Am Heart J 160 (2010), 1042–1048.
3. Loudon, K., Treweek, S., Sullivan, F., Cheesbrough, G.F., Donnan, P., Thorpe, K., et al. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ, 350, 2015, h2147.
4. White, C., Gilshenan, K., Hardy, J., A survey of views of palliative care healthcare professionals towards referring cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials in palliative care. Support Cancer Care 16 (2008), 1397–1405.
5. Friedman, E.F., Thase, M.E., Biggs, M.M., Carmin, C., Hollon, S.D., Kornblith, S.J., et al. The implementation of cognitive therapy in STAR*D. Cognit Ther Res 28 (2004), 819–833.
6. Biau, D.J., Halm, J.A., Ahmadieh, H., Capello, W.N., Jeekel, J., Boutron, I., et al. Provider and center effect in multicenter randomized controlled trials of surgical specialties: an analysis on patient-level data. Ann Surg 247 (2008), 892–898.
7. Blasey, C.M., Debattista, C., Roe, R., Block, T., Belanoff, J.K., A multisite trial of mifepristone for the treatment of psychotic depression: a site-by-treatment interaction. Contemp Clin Trials 30 (2009), 284–288.
8. Reflection paper on the extrapolation of results from clinical studies conducted outside the EU to the EU-population,Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/692702/2008. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/11/WC500013468.pdf.
9. Fine, P.E.M., Variation in protection by BCG: implications of and for heterologous immunity. Lancet 346 (1995), 1339–1345.
10. Wilson, M.E., Fineberg, H.V., Colditz, G.A., Geographic latitude and the efficacy of bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine. Clin Infect Dis 20 (1995), 982–991.
11. Travers, J., Marsh, S., Williams, M., Weatherall, M., Caldwell, B., Shirtcliffe, P., et al. External validity of randomized controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply?. Thorax 62 (2007), 219–223.
12. Sandhya, P., Danda, D., Rajaratnam, S., Thomas, N., Sjögren's renal tubular acidosis and osteomalacia—an Asian Indian series. Open Rheumatol J 8 (2014), 103–109.
13. Rothwell, P.M., Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Clin Trials, 1, 2006, e9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pctr.0010009.
14. Gehring, M., Taylor, R.S., Mellody, M., Casteels, B., Piazzi, A., Gensini, G., et al. Factors influencing clinical trial site selection in Europe: the survey of attitudes towards trial sites in Europe (the SAT-EU study). BMJ Open, 3, 2013, e002957.
15. Stark, A.R., Tyson, J.E., Hibber, D., Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. J Perinatol 30 (2010), 163–169.
16. Helfand, B.T., Mongiu, A.K., Roehrborn, C.G., Donnell, R.F., Bruskewitz, R., Kaplan, S.A., et al., MIST Investigators. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. J Urol 181 (2009), 2674–2679.
17. Taljaard, M., Brehaut, J.C., Weijer, C., Boruch, R., Donner, A., Eccles, M.P., et al. Variability in research ethics review of cluster randomised trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries. Trials, 15, 2014, 48.
18. DiLiberto, D.D., Staedke, S.G., Nankya, F., Maiteki-Sebuguzi, C., Taaka, L., Nayiga, S., et al. Behind the scenes of the PRIME intervention: designing a complex intervention to improve malaria care at public health centres in Uganda. Glob Health Action, 8, 2015, 29067.
19. Halm, E.A., Lee, C., Chassin, M.R., Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 137 (2002), 511–520.
20. The VA/NIH Acute Renal Failure Trial Network. Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med 359 (2008), 7–20.
21. Ospina-Tascon, G.A., Buchele, G.L., Vincent, J.L., Multicenter, randomized, controlled trials evaluating mortality in intensive care: doomed to fail?. Crit Care Med 36 (2008), 1311–1322.
22. van den Berghe, G., Wouters, P., Weekers, F., Verwaest, C., Bruyninckx, F., Schetz, M., et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 345 (2001), 1359–1367.
23. Brunkhorst, F.M., Engel, C., Bloos, F., Meier-Hellmann, A., Ragaller, A., Weiler, N., et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 358 (2008), 125–139.
24. Preiser J-C. Intensive glycemic control in med-surg patients (European Glucontrol trial). Program and abstracts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine 36th Critical Care Congress, February 17–21, 2007; Orlando, FL.
25. Wiener, R.S., Wiener, D.C., Larson, R.J., Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA 300 (2008), 933–944.
26. Gheroghe, A., Roberts, T.E., Ives, J.C., Fletcher, B.R., Calvert, M., Centre selection for clinical trials and generalisability of results: a mixed methods study. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e56560.
27. Staedke, S.G., Chandler, C.I.R., DiLiberto, D., Maiteki-Sebuguzi, C., Nankya, F., Webb, E., et al. The PRIME trial protocol: evaluating the impact of an intervention implemented in public health centres on management of malaria and health outcomes of children using a cluster-randomised design in Tororo, Uganda. Implement Sci, 8, 2013, 114.
28. Donovan, J.L., Paramasivan, S., Toerien, M., Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspective in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials, 15, 2014, 5.
29. Hummers-Pradier, E., Bleidorn, J., Schmiemann, G., Joos, S., Becker, A., Altiner, A., et al. German ‘Clinical Trials in German General Practice Network’. General practice-based clinical trials in Germany—a problem analysis. Trials, 13, 2012, 205.
30. van Staa, T.P., Dyson, L., McCann, G., Padmanabhan, S., Belatri, R., Goldacre, B., et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 18 (2014), 1–146.
31. Fransen, G.A., van Marrewijk, C.J., Mujakovic, S., Muris, J.W., Laheij, R.J., Numans, M.E., et al. Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 2007, 16.
32. Reid, C.M., Ryan, P., Nelson, M., Beckinsale, P., McMurchie, M., Gleave, D., et al., ANBP2 Management Committee. General practitioner participation in the second Australian National Blood Pressure study (ANBP2). Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 28 (2001), 663–667.
33. Glynn, L.G., O'Riordan, C., MacFarlane, A., Newell, J., Iglesias, A.A., Whitfors, D., et al. Research activity and capacity in primary healthcare: the REACH study: a survey. BMC Fam Pract, 10, 2009, 33.
34. Robinson, G., Gould, M., What are the attitudes of general practitioners towards research?. Br J Gen Pract 50 (2000), 390–392.
35. Weir, C.R., Butler, J., Thraen, I., Woods, P.A., Hermos, J., Ferguson, R., et al. Veterans Healthcare Administration providers' attitudes and perceptions regarding pragmatic trials embedded at the point of care. Clin Trials 11 (2014), 292–299.
36. Ross, S., Grant, A., Counsell, C., Gillespie, W., Russell, I., Prescott, R., Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999), 1143–1156.
37. Salmon, P., Peters, S., Rogers, A., Gask, L., Clifford, R., Iredale, W., et al. Peering through the barriers in GPs' explanations for declining to participate in research: the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. Fam Pract 24 (2007), 269–275.
38. Rosemann, T., Szecsenyi, J., General practitioners' attitudes towards research in primary care: qualitative results of a cross sectional study. BMC Fam Pract, 5, 2004, 31.
39. Laken, M.A., Dawson, R., Engelman, O., Lovelace, O., Way, C., Egan, B.M., Comparative effectiveness research in the “real” world: lessons learned in a study of treatment-resistant hypertension. J Am Soc Hypertens 7 (2013), 95–101.
40. Ngune, I., Jiwa, M., Dadich, J., Lotriet, J., Sriram, D., Effective recruitment strategies in primary care research: a systematic review. Qual Prim Care 20 (2012), 115–123.
41. Flood, B., Patients testimonial of public/private partnership for unbiased BIOmarkers in PREDiction of respiratory disease outcomes. Eur Respir Soc Abstract, 3460, 2015.
42. Haidich, A.B., Ioannidis, J.P., Late-starter sites in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003), 408–415.
43. Haidich, A.B., Ioannidis, J.P., Effect of early patient enrollment on the time to completion and publication of randomized controlled trials. Am J Epidemiol 154 (2001), 873–880.
44. Ruud, K.L., Leblanc, A., Mullan, R.J., Pencille, L.J., Tiedje, K., Branda, M.E., et al. Lessons learned from the conduct of a multisite cluster randomized practical trial of decision aids in rural and suburban primary care practices. Trials, 14, 2013, 267.
45. Van Staa, T.P., Goldacre, B., Gulliford, M., Cassell, J., Pirmohamed, M., Taweel, A., et al. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ, 344, 2012, e55.
46. Tarnow-Mordi, W., Simes, J., Cruz, M., Strategies to accelerate recruitment to NHMRC multi-centre clinical trials. J Paediatr Child Health 49 (2013), E103–E105.
47. Bakerly, N.D., The Salford Lung Study Protocol: a prospective, randomized real-world effectiveness trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 182, 2013, A2159.
48. Bakerly, N.D., Woodcock, A., New, J.P., Gibson, M., Wu, W., Leather, D., et al. The Salford Lung Study Protocol: a prospective, randomized real-world effectiveness trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Am J Respir Res, 16, 2015, 105.