The application of PRECIS-2 ratings in randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine

Analysis of the characteristics and the degree of pragmatism exhibited by pragmatic-labelled trials of antineoplastic treatments

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified.

METHODS

We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57-3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature.

CONCLUSION

PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory.

Applying the PRECIS-2 tool for self-declared 'pragmatic' acupuncture trials: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The pragmatic design has received much attention in the field of acupuncture clinical trials because of insufficient information about the specific effects of acupuncture. However, pragmatism in pragmatic acupuncture trials has not been comprehensively investigated. The PRECIS-2 tool was developed and has been gradually used to design pragmatic trials; therefore, we will apply the PRECIS-2 tool to investigate the pragmatism of pragmatic acupuncture trials in this study.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this systematic review, self-declared 'pragmatic' randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or protocols of self-declared 'pragmatic' RCTs investigating acupuncture will be searched and included to be reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, WANFANG, Taiwan Periodical Literature Database, KoreaMed, KMbase, Research Information Service System, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System, CiNii and ClinicalTrials.gov for registered trials will be electronically searched from inception to March 2022. Protocols of published RCTs or secondary analysis of RCTs will be excluded. Additionally, no language restriction will be applied. Two authors will independently extract descriptive information and assess the pragmatism of pragmatic acupuncture trials using nine domains of the PRECIS-2 tool and one additional domain-control. Descriptive statistics will be reported for each domain and the overall score, and a one-sample t-test will be used to statistically analyse whether the score is greater than 3 (equally pragmatic and explanatory). The wheel diagrams of the nine domains of the PRECIS-2 tool will be used to demonstrate the pragmatism of the included studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not warranted as this study will obtain data from previously reported articles. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236975.