What have we learned about trial design from NIMH-funded pragmatic trials?
- PMID: 20736990
- PMCID: PMC3055577
- DOI: 10.1038/npp.2010.115
What have we learned about trial design from NIMH-funded pragmatic trials?
Abstract
At the 2008 annual meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), a symposium was devoted to the following question: 'what have we learned about the design of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) from the recent costly long-term, large-scale trials of psychiatric treatments?' in order to inform the design of future trials. In all, 10 recommendations were generated placing emphasis on (1) appropriate conduct of pragmatic trials; (2) clinical, rather than, merely statistical significance; (3) sampling from the population clinicians are called upon to treat; (4) clinical outcomes of patients, rather than, on outcome measures; (5) use of stratification, controlling, or adjusting when necessary and not otherwise; (6) appropriate consideration of site differences in multisite studies; (7) encouragement of 'post hoc' exploration to generate (not test) hypotheses; (8) precise articulation of the treatment strategy to be tested and use of the corresponding appropriate design; (9) expanded opportunity for training of researchers and reviewers in RCT principles; and (10) greater emphasis on data sharing.
References
-
- Altman DG, Schulz KF, Hoher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694. - PubMed
-
- Armitage P. Attitudes in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:2675–2683. - PubMed
-
- Avorn J. Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1927–1929. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
