How pragmatic are the randomised trials used in recommendations for control of glycosylated haemoglobin levels in type 2 diabetic patients in general practice: an application of the PRECIS II tool
Open Access
- 19 March 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Trials
- Vol. 21 (1), 1-7
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4215-5
Abstract
Recommendations for good clinical practice have been reported to be difficult to apply in real life by primary care clinicians. This could be because the clinical trials at the origin of the guidelines are based on explanatory trials, conducted under ideal conditions not reflecting the reality of primary care, rather than pragmatic trials conducted under real-life conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate how pragmatic are the clinical trials used to build the French High Authority of Health’s recommendations on the management of type II diabetes. Trials from the 2013 Cochrane meta-analysis that led to the 2013 French High Authority of Health’s recommendations on the management of type II diabetes were selected. Each trial was analysed by applying the PRECIS-2 tool to evaluate whether the trial was pragmatic or explanatory, according to the nine domains of PRECIS-2. Each domain was scored between 1 (very explanatory) and 5 (very pragmatic) by two blinded researchers, and consensus was reached with a third researcher in case of discrepancy. Median scores were calculated for each of the nine domains. Twenty-three articles were analysed. Eight out of nine domains – namely eligibility, recruitment, setting, organisation, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, follow-up, and primary outcome – had a median score of less than 3, indicating a more explanatory design. Only the primary analysis domain had a score indicating a more pragmatic approach (median score of 4). In more than 25% of the articles, data to score the domains of recruitment, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, and primary analysis were missing. Trials used to build French recommendations for good clinical practice for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care were more explanatory than pragmatic. Policy-makers should encourage the funding of pragmatic trials to evaluate the different strategies proposed for managing the patient’s treatment according to HbA1C levels and give clinicians feasible recommendations.This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomized trial of insulin versus usual care in reducing restenosis after coronary intervention in patients with diabetes. the STent Restenosis And Metabolism (STREAM) studyCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 2012
- Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trialsBMJ, 2011
- Explanatory and Pragmatic Attitudes in Therapeutical TrialsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- Patient‐directed titration for achieving glycaemic goals using a once‐daily basal insulin analogue: an assessment of two different fasting plasma glucose targets ‐ the TITRATETM studyDiabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 2009
- Glucose Control and Vascular Complications in Veterans with Type 2 DiabetesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Effects of Intensive Glucose Lowering in Type 2 DiabetesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Intense metabolic control by means of insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI 2): effects on mortality and morbidityEuropean Heart Journal, 2005
- Intensified multifactorial intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria: the Steno type 2 randomised studyThe Lancet, 1999
- Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33)The Lancet, 1998