Cited by 59Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 5. Usual care and real life comparators

Open access
Zuidgeest, Mira G.P., Welsing, Paco M.J., van Thiel, Ghislaine J.M.W., Ciaglia, Antonio, Alfonso-Cristancho, Rafael, Eckert, Laurent, Eijkemans, Marinus J.C., Egger, Matthias·2017·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Pragmatic trials may deliver real-world evidence on the added value of new medications compared with usual care and inform decision making earlier in development. This fifth paper in a series on pragmatic trials in the Journal discusses usual care as a comparator and the allocation of treatment strategies. The allocation and implementation of treatment strategies should resemble clinical practice as closely as possible. Randomization at the level of the site, as opposed to at the individual level, may be preferred. Data analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle is recommended, and crossover between treatment arms and strong treatment preferences may be accounted for in the study design in specific situations. Although usual care is the comparator of choice, this may differ substantially between centers and countries complicating comparator choice. Using clinical guidelines to define usual care can be helpful in standardizing comparator treatments; however, this may decrease the applicability of the results to real-life settings. Conversely, using multiple usual-care treatment arms will increase the complexity of the study. The specific objectives of the trial and design choices should be discussed with all stakeholders to realize the full potential of the pragmatic trial.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.001

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zuidgeest, M. G. P., Welsing, P. M. J., van Thiel, G. J. M. W., Ciaglia, A., Alfonso-Cristancho, R., Eckert, L., Eijkemans, M. J. C., & Egger, M.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Sanofi (France) (FR)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Zuidgeest, Mira G.P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
90
Pages
92-98
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783576441
Cited by
59
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
  • European Commission (115546)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
pragmatic trials, usual care, real-world evidence, comparator selection, intention-to-treat analysis, crossover, treatment preferences, clinical guidelines, applicability, early drug development, stakeholder engagement
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Decision Making, Drug Therapy, Humans, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review