Synthese 200 (4):1-29 (2022)
AbstractThe explanatory/pragmatic-trial distinction enjoys a burgeoning philosophical and medical literature and a significant contingent of support among philosophers and healthcare stakeholders as an important way to assess the design and results of randomized controlled trials. A major motivation has been the need to provide relevant, generalizable data to drive healthcare decisions. While talk of pragmatic and explanatory trials could be seen as convenient shorthand, the distinction can also be seen as harboring deeper issues related to inferential strategies used to evaluate causal claims regarding medical treatments. A comprehensive, critical analysis of the distinction and underlying epistemological framework upon which the distinction is based, particularly with respect to treatment effectiveness, has yet to be forthcoming. I provide this, analyzing the distinction’s relationship to generalizability and cognate distinctions between ideal conditions and real-world practice, internal and external validity, and efficacy and effectiveness. I also analyze recent philosophical work that relies on the explanatory/pragmatic-trial distinction and that advocates for more pragmatic trials. I conclude that as an organizing principle for trial-design decisions and trial evaluation, the explanatory/pragmatic-trial distinction is conceptually problematic and not as useful as its proponents seem to think. Since some pragmatic-trial features can be inimical to establishing treatment effectiveness, pragmatic-trial features should not be conflated with pragmatic trials’ avowed goals. If the distinction is to be useful, it and some associated concepts, including generalizability, should be reformulated, lest they continue to underlie a medical epistemology that could contribute to methodologically flawed and potentially unethical advice for the design and interpretation of trials.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference.William R. Shadish - 2001 - Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Evaluating Evidence of Mechanisms in Medicine.Veli-Pekka Parkkinen, Christian Wallmann, Michael Wilde, Brendan Clarke, Phyllis Illari, Michael P. Kelly, Charles Norell, Federica Russo, Beth Shaw & Jon Williamson - 2018 - Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Measuring Effectiveness.Jacob Stegenga - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 54:62-71.
Citations of this work
Treatment Effectiveness and the Russo–Williamson Thesis, EBM+, and Bradford Hill's Viewpoints.Steven Tresker - 2022 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 34 (3):131-158.
Similar books and articles
An Ethical Analysis of the SUPPORT Trial: Addressing Challenges Posed by a Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Controlled Trial.Austin R. Horn, Charles Weijer, Jeremy Grimshaw, Jamie Brehaut, Dean Fergusson, Cory E. Goldstein & Monica Taljaard - 2018 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 28 (1):85-118.
The Social Value of Pragmatic Trials.Shona Kalkman, Ghislaine van Thiel, Rieke van der Graaf, Mira Zuidgeest, Iris Goetz, Diederick Grobbee & Johannes van Delden - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (2):136-143.
Are Explanatory Trials Ethical? Shifting the Burden of Justification in Clinical Trial Design.Kirstin Borgerson - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (4):293-308.
Randomized Controlled Trials.Mike Armour, Carolyn Ee & Genevieve Z. Steiner - 2019 - In Pranee Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer Singapore. pp. 645-662.
Stakeholder Views Regarding Ethical Issues in the Design and Conduct of Pragmatic Trials: Study Protocol.Stuart G. Nicholls, Kelly Carroll, Jamie Brehaut, Charles Weijer, Spencer Phillips Hey, Cory E. Goldstein, Merrick Zwarenstein, Ian D. Graham, Joanne E. McKenzie, Lauralyn McIntyre, Vipul Jairath, Marion K. Campbell, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Dean A. Fergusson & Monica Taljaard - 2018 - BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):90.
Off the Beaten Path: Conducting Ethical Pragmatic Trials with Marginalized Populations.Diego Silva, Paula Goering, Nora Jacobson & David Streiner - 2011 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 33 (3):6-11.
Characterizing the Population in Clinical Trials: Barriers, Comparability, and Implications for Review.Charles Weijer - unknown
Cost‐Effectiveness of Ancrod Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke: Results From the Stroke Treatment with Ancrod Trial (STAT).Gregory P. Samsa PhD, David B. Matchar Md, G. Rhys Williams ScD & David E. Levy Md - 2002 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8 (1):61-70.
Inefficacy Interim Monitoring Procedures in Randomized Clinical Trials: The Need to Report.Boris Freidlin & Edward L. Korn - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (3):2-10.
Toward a Sharp Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.Megan Henricks Stotts - 2020 - Synthese 197 (1):185–208.
Schemata, CONSORT, and the Salk Polio Vaccine Trial.Charles J. Kowalski & Adam J. Mrdjenovich - 2018 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 43 (1):64-82.
Informed Consent in a Pragmatic Emergency Suicide Trial: Rejecting the Research–Practice Distinction.Kendra Parris & Kristin Canavera - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (10):103-105.
Having Know‐How: Intellect, Action, and Recent Work on Ryle's Distinction Between Knowledge‐How and Knowledge‐That.Greg Sax - 2010 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (4):507-530.
Is Formalism the Key to Resolving the Generalizability Crisis? An Experimental Economics Perspective.Zacharias Maniadis - 2022 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 45.