The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in psychiatry
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most important method of evaluating new treatments and treatment policies. Despite this, there are relatively few large pragmatic RCTs in psychiatry. AIMS: To explore the main advantages of large pragmatic RCTs and the obstacles to performing them in psychiatry. METHOD: A narrative review of literature on pragmatic RCTs with examples drawn from psychiatry and other medical specialities. RESULTS: Obstacles to performing pragmatic RCTs in psychiatry include the complexity of psychiatric interventions, the complexity of outcomes used in psychiatry and the difficulties of blinding subjects and investigators to some psychiatric interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers need to frame questions in a form that is relevant to clinicians and to convince clinicians to cooperate in simple large pragmatic trials.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Conducting clinical trials in real-world health system practice can be challenging, especially in psychiatry (18).”
From Total Sleep Deprivation Followed by Bright Light Therapy as Rapid Relief for Depression: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [18]
Citations
Cites
Hamilton, M. (1960) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 · Cited by 32,817
Everitt, B. (1998) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.172.1.7 · Cited by 4,331
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect
Cook, R. J., & Sackett, D. L. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6977.452 · Cited by 1,885
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
Black, N. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 · Cited by 1,598
Explanatory and Pragmatic Attitudes in Therapeutical Trials
Schwartz, D., & Lellouch, J. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.012 · Cited by 1,253
Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials
Schwartz, D., & Lellouch, J. (1967) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(67)90041-0 · Cited by 1,185
Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat.
Altman, D. G. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1309 · Cited by 938
Rogers, S. L., & Friedhoff, L. T. (1996) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · doi:10.1159/000106895 · Cited by 743
Costing psychiatric interventions.
Beecham, J. K., & Knapp, M. R. J. (1992) · Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) · Cited by 710
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Sackett, 1991, Clinical Epidemiology: A Bask Science for Clinical Medicine
- 10.1001/jama.1996.03530480039038 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement
Zwarenstein, M., Treweek, S., Gagnier, J. J., Altman, D. G., Tunis, S., Haynes, B., Oxman, A. D., Moher, D., & groups, F. T. C. A. P. T. I. H. (. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a2390 · Cited by 1,813
Stroup, T., Mcevoy, J., Swartz, M., Byerly, M., Glick, I., Cañive, J., McGee, M., Simpson, G., Stevens, M., & Lieberman, J. (2003) · Schizophrenia bulletin · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a006986 · Cited by 647
Godwin, M. S., Rühland, L., Casson, I., MacDonald, S., Delva, D., Birtwhistle, R., Lam, M., & Seguin, R. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-28 · Cited by 507
Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability
Treweek, S. P., & Zwarenstein, M. (2009) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-10-37 · Cited by 495
Personalized Medicine for Depression: Can We Match Patients With Treatments?
Simon, G. E., & Perlis, R. H. (2010) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09111680 · Cited by 365
Metadata
- Authors
- Hotopf, M., Churchill, R., & Lewis, G.
- Affiliations
- Guy's Hospital (GB)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hotopf, Matthew
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 175
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 217-223
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W2058332740
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- pragmatic randomized controlled trial, psychiatry, mental health outcomes, clinician involvement in research, research question formulation
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Costs and Cost Analysis, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Prognosis, Random Allocation, Observer Variation, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Patient Selection
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
