Research status of pragmatic randomized controlled trials in China
Lü Zhijie1, Wu Li2, Li Qiushuang2, Liu Shan2
1 Sir Run Run Show Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310000, China;
2 The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310006, China
Objective To review the published literatures on the pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCT) in China and to analyze the current status and hotspots of pRCT research. Methods The literatures of pRCT published by Chinese scholars from CNKI, Wanfang and Web of Science were reviewed since the establishment of the database to 31 July 2021. CiteSpace software was utilized to analyze the authors, institutions, keywords, and burst terms. Results Totally 196 Chinese and English literatures were published, and the number of articles was increasing year by year, with 79 Chinese literatures distributed in 44 journals and 117 English literatures distributed in 71 journals. The Institute of Clinical Basic Medicine of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (7 articles) published the most Chinese literatures, while the University of Hong Kong (34 articles) published the most English literatures (34 literatures). The clustering label words of Chinese literature were clinical trial, RCT, evidence-based medicine, comprehensive scheme of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), clinical trial scheme, clinical research and pharmacoeconomics. The clustering results of English literature needed to be further condensed. There were 4 and 5 burst terms in Chinese and English literatures respectively, which lasted for only from 1 to 3 years. Conclusion research hotspots of pRCT in China mainly focused on four fields, namely comprehensive clinical trial program of TCM, clinical trial in real world research, evidence-based medicine and pharmacoeconomics. However, the core authors of the research were few, the research institutions were scattered, and inter-agency cooperation needed to be strengthened.
吕志杰，吴丽，李秋爽，刘姗. 中国实效性随机对照试验研究现状[J]. 中国医院统计, 2021, 28(6): 568-572.
Lü Zhijie, Wu Li, Li Qiushuang, Liu Shan. Research status of pragmatic randomized controlled trials in China. journal1, 2021, 28(6): 568-572.
［1］唐立，康德英，喻佳洁，等．实效性随机对照试验：真实世界研究的重要设计［J］．中国循证医学杂志，2017，17(9)：999-1004．
［2］何俏，时景璞．临床真实世界研究中的实验性研究设计［J］．中华流行病学杂志，2018，39(4)：519-523．
［3］MACRAE K D. Pragmatic versus explanatory trials［J］. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 1989, 5(3):333-339.
［4］XU C, ZHANG Y, CHEN L, et al. Association between outcome disparities and pragmatic features related to clinical trial and realworld settings in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A populationbased retrospective cohort study, 20062016［J］. Radiother Oncol, 2020, 151:306-313.
［5］CHEUNG Y T D, JIANG N, JIANG C Q, et al. Physicians′ very brief (30sec) intervention for smoking cessation on 13671 smokers in China: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial［J］. Addiction, 2021, 116(5):1172-1185.
［11］陈悦，陈超美，刘则渊，等．CiteSpace知识图谱的方法论功能［J］．科学学研究，2015，33(2)：242-253．
［12］胡贵平，胡亚楠，詹思延．PRECIS研究进展［J］．中华流行病学杂志，2016，37(3)：439-442．
［13］SCHWARTZ D, LELLOUCH J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials［J］. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(5):499505.
［14］MYLES P S, BELLOMO R, CORCORAN T, et al. Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery［J］. N Engl J Med, 2018, 378(24):2263-2274.
［15］LANDONI G, LOMIVOROTOV V V, NIGRO NETO C, et al. Volatile anesthetics versus total intravenous anesthesia for cardiac surgery［J］. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(13):1214-1225.
［16］WONG I C K, BANASCHEWSKI T, BUITELAAR J, et al. Emerging challenges in pharmacotherapy research on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder-outcome measures beyond symptom control and clinical trials［J］. Lancet Psychiatry, 2019, 6(6):528-537.
［17］LUK T T, LAM T H, LEUNG W C, et al. Brief advice, nicotine replacement therapy sampling, and active referral for expectant fathers who smoke cigarettes: A randomized clinical trial［J］. JAMA Intern Med, 2021, 181(8):1081-1089.
［18］青雪梅，房繄恭，刘保延，等．实用性随机对照试验及其方法学特征思考［J］．北京中医药大学学报，2008，31(1)：14-18．
［19］COX E, MARTIN B C, VAN STAA T, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report: Part II［J］. Value Health, 2009, 12(8):1053-1061.
［20］温泽淮，李玲，刘艳梅，等．实效性随机对照试验的技术规范［J］．中国循证医学杂志，2019，19(7)：794-802．
