• David J Hohenschurz-Schmidt, Dan Cherkin, RiceAndrew S CASCPain Research, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom., Robert H Dworkin, Dennis C Turk, Michael P McDermott, Matthew J Bair, Lynn L DeBar, Robert R Edwards, John T Farrar, Robert D Kerns, John D Markman, Michael C Rowbotham, Karen J Sherman, Ajay D Wasan, Penney Cowan, Paul Desjardins, McKenzie Ferguson, Roy Freeman, Jennifer S Gewandter, Ian Gilron, Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk, Sharon H Hertz, Smriti Iyengar, Cornelia Kamp, Barbara I Karp, Bethea A Kleykamp, John D Loeser, Sean Mackey, Richard Malamut, Ewan McNicol, Kushang V Patel, Friedhelm Sandbrink, Kenneth Schmader, Lee Simon, Deborah J Steiner, Christin Veasley, and Jan Vollert.
• Pain Research, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
• Pain. 2023 Jul 1; 164 (7): 145714721457-1472.

AbstractMany questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

26 keywords...

hide…