Modern trials are most useful when they are pragmatic and explanatory – there is no continuum

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Perrine Janiaud , Lars G. Hemkens
{"title":"Modern trials are most useful when they are pragmatic and explanatory – there is no continuum","authors":"Perrine Janiaud ,&nbsp;Lars G. Hemkens","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objectives</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods, Results and Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"176 ","pages":"Article 111566"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624003226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objectives

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.

Methods, Results and Conclusions

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.
现代试验最有用的是实用性和解释性--没有连续性。
半个多世纪前,Schwartz 和 Lellouch 将 "实用性 "和 "解释性 "这两个术语引入生物医学,提出了两种不同的试验设计概念方法。如今,我们常说有实用性试验和解释性试验之分。实用性试验为实践中的决策提供信息,解释性试验旨在了解干预的机制。它们通常被视为一个连续体的两个极端。在这篇评论中,我们认为,随着医疗保健和临床研究的数字化,为现代试验设计铺平了道路,开辟了新的途径,并不存在这样一个连续体。自 Schwartz 和 Lellouch 的开创性工作以来,新的方法和手段不断涌现,研究人员可以在同一试验中同时解决实用性和解释性问题。新出现的常规收集的 "真实世界 "数据、分散试验技术的发展以及数字生物标志物的创造,使得研究人员可以在尽量少干扰或不干扰真实世界护理的情况下观察健康结果。这克服了以往在常规护理中研究干预机制的局限性,使连续性的概念变得过时。我们认为,需要将实用主义和解释主义理解为两个截然不同但又相互兼容的概念维度,从而为利用新技术设计最具参考价值的临床试验以及做出更好的临床和监管决策开辟新的视角。我们的论点基于对连续体概念的分析,并强调了其局限性。我们回顾了关键的试验设计特征,并引入了一个新概念,将解释性设计特征视为基本的、侵入性或非侵入性的、充分的或不充分的。我们描述了它们对实用主义和解释主义的影响,并展示了当今如何能够进行最有用的多维实用-解释试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信