The pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) instrument was useful for refining a randomized trial design: Experiences from an investigative team

Daniel L. Riddle, Robert E. Johnson, Mark P. Jensen, Francis J. Keefe, Kurt Kroenke, Matthew Bair, Dennis C. Ang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: A recently published instrument (PRECIS) was designed to assist investigative teams in understanding the various design decisions that need to be made regarding pragmatic vs. explanatory trials. Our team used this instrument during an investigators' meeting to organize our discussion regarding the design of a planned trial and to determine the extent of consensus among the study investigators. Study Design and Setting: The study was descriptive in nature and occurred during an investigator meeting. After reading and reviewing the 10 PRECIS criteria, the team made quantitative judgments of the planned study regarding each PRECIS criteria to reflect initial, ideal, and final study design perceptions. Results: Data indicated that the final study design was more explanatory in nature than the preliminary plan. Evidence of consensus was obtained. Conclusion: The investigative team found that applying PRECIS principles were useful for (1) detailing points of discussion related to trial design, (2) making revisions to the design to be consistent with the project goals, and (3) achieving consensus. We believe our experiences with PRECIS may prove valuable for trial researchers in much the same way that case reports can provide valuable insights for clinicians.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1271-1275
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume63
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
Consensus
Reading

Keywords

  • Arthroplasty
  • Clinical trial
  • Coping skills
  • Knee
  • Pain
  • Research design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

The pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) instrument was useful for refining a randomized trial design : Experiences from an investigative team. / Riddle, Daniel L.; Johnson, Robert E.; Jensen, Mark P.; Keefe, Francis J.; Kroenke, Kurt; Bair, Matthew; Ang, Dennis C.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 63, No. 11, 11.2010, p. 1271-1275.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8bdc9a1858224df6a848d56406f1501b,
title = "The pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) instrument was useful for refining a randomized trial design: Experiences from an investigative team",
abstract = "Objective: A recently published instrument (PRECIS) was designed to assist investigative teams in understanding the various design decisions that need to be made regarding pragmatic vs. explanatory trials. Our team used this instrument during an investigators' meeting to organize our discussion regarding the design of a planned trial and to determine the extent of consensus among the study investigators. Study Design and Setting: The study was descriptive in nature and occurred during an investigator meeting. After reading and reviewing the 10 PRECIS criteria, the team made quantitative judgments of the planned study regarding each PRECIS criteria to reflect initial, ideal, and final study design perceptions. Results: Data indicated that the final study design was more explanatory in nature than the preliminary plan. Evidence of consensus was obtained. Conclusion: The investigative team found that applying PRECIS principles were useful for (1) detailing points of discussion related to trial design, (2) making revisions to the design to be consistent with the project goals, and (3) achieving consensus. We believe our experiences with PRECIS may prove valuable for trial researchers in much the same way that case reports can provide valuable insights for clinicians.",
keywords = "Arthroplasty, Clinical trial, Coping skills, Knee, Pain, Research design",
author = "Riddle, {Daniel L.} and Johnson, {Robert E.} and Jensen, {Mark P.} and Keefe, {Francis J.} and Kurt Kroenke and Matthew Bair and Ang, {Dennis C.}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.006",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "1271--1275",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) instrument was useful for refining a randomized trial design

T2 - Experiences from an investigative team

AU - Riddle, Daniel L.

AU - Johnson, Robert E.

AU - Jensen, Mark P.

AU - Keefe, Francis J.

AU - Kroenke, Kurt

AU - Bair, Matthew

AU - Ang, Dennis C.

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Objective: A recently published instrument (PRECIS) was designed to assist investigative teams in understanding the various design decisions that need to be made regarding pragmatic vs. explanatory trials. Our team used this instrument during an investigators' meeting to organize our discussion regarding the design of a planned trial and to determine the extent of consensus among the study investigators. Study Design and Setting: The study was descriptive in nature and occurred during an investigator meeting. After reading and reviewing the 10 PRECIS criteria, the team made quantitative judgments of the planned study regarding each PRECIS criteria to reflect initial, ideal, and final study design perceptions. Results: Data indicated that the final study design was more explanatory in nature than the preliminary plan. Evidence of consensus was obtained. Conclusion: The investigative team found that applying PRECIS principles were useful for (1) detailing points of discussion related to trial design, (2) making revisions to the design to be consistent with the project goals, and (3) achieving consensus. We believe our experiences with PRECIS may prove valuable for trial researchers in much the same way that case reports can provide valuable insights for clinicians.

AB - Objective: A recently published instrument (PRECIS) was designed to assist investigative teams in understanding the various design decisions that need to be made regarding pragmatic vs. explanatory trials. Our team used this instrument during an investigators' meeting to organize our discussion regarding the design of a planned trial and to determine the extent of consensus among the study investigators. Study Design and Setting: The study was descriptive in nature and occurred during an investigator meeting. After reading and reviewing the 10 PRECIS criteria, the team made quantitative judgments of the planned study regarding each PRECIS criteria to reflect initial, ideal, and final study design perceptions. Results: Data indicated that the final study design was more explanatory in nature than the preliminary plan. Evidence of consensus was obtained. Conclusion: The investigative team found that applying PRECIS principles were useful for (1) detailing points of discussion related to trial design, (2) making revisions to the design to be consistent with the project goals, and (3) achieving consensus. We believe our experiences with PRECIS may prove valuable for trial researchers in much the same way that case reports can provide valuable insights for clinicians.

KW - Arthroplasty

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Coping skills

KW - Knee

KW - Pain

KW - Research design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956950318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956950318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.006

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 20670911

AN - SCOPUS:77956950318

VL - 63

SP - 1271

EP - 1275

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 11

ER -