Pragmatic Versus Explanatory Trials
- 1 July 1989
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Vol. 5 (3) , 333-339
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300007406
Abstract
This article considers the distinction between “explanatory” and “pragmatic” aims in clinical trials—the distinction between testing a biological hypothesis and providing evidence to permit a choice between alternative treatment policies. The choice of treatments to compare, the selection of patients for the trial, the study size, and how the treatment comparison should be made are among the matters discussed. In general, where explanatory and pragmatic aims conflict, the pragmatic aim will often take priority.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trialsPublished by Elsevier ,2004
- Randomized Clinical Trials in SurgeryInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989
- A defence of the small clinical trial: evaluation of three gastroenterological studies.BMJ, 1986
- Should Operations Be Regionalized?New England Journal of Medicine, 1979
- TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES IN MEDICAL RESEARCHThe Lancet, 1978
- The Importance of Beta, the Type II Error and Sample Size in the Design and Interpretation of the Randomized Control TrialNew England Journal of Medicine, 1978
- Is Statistics a Science?Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 1978
- Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: A Report after Ten Years of a Clinical TrialBMJ, 1972
- Joint study of extracranial arterial occlusion. V. Progress report of prognosis following surgery or nonsurgical treatment for transient cerebral ischemic attacks and cervical carotid artery lesionsJAMA, 1970
- TREATMENT OF STAGE-II CARCINOMA OF THE FEMALE BREASTThe Lancet, 1966