Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404466›Full record

ReviewTrials2021

Zelen design clinical trials: why, when, and how.

Gregory E Simon, Susan M Shortreed, Lynn L DeBar

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07404189 (Evaluation of the Acceptability and Clinical Effectiveness of Augmenting Comprehensive Primary Care-Based Obesity Management With the Nutu™ Digital Health Platform), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07404189 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Acceptability and Clinical Effectiveness of Augmenting Comprehensive Primary Care-Based Obesity Management With the Nutu™ Digital Health Platform

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamRan2026 to 2028Enrolled300ConditionsObesity & Overweight, Cardiovascular Risk FactorsArmsFLOW Program, Nutu™ Offer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Safer and targeted use of antipsychotics in youth: an embedded, pragmatic randomized trial.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gregory E SimonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA. gregory.e.simon@kp.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2859-5467
Susan M ShortreedKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA.
Lynn L DeBarKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA.

Funding

Patient-centered team-based primary care to Treat Opioid Use Disorder, Depression, and Other conditionsUF1MH121949 · NIMH · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BRADLEY, KATHARINE ANTHONY, DEBAR, LYNN L. · 2019 to 2024
$13.9M
Whose Depression Are We Measuring?: Considering the role of place on Black women’s depression outcomesU19MH121738 · NIMH · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI SIMON, GREGORY E. · 2019 to 2023
$10.6M
Pragmatic Trial of Population-based Programs to Prevent Suicide AttemptUH3MH007755 · NIMH · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI SIMON, GREGORY E. · 2014 to 2018
$8.9M
NIMH NIH HHS U19 MH121738NIMH NIH HHS UF1 MH121949NIMH NIH HHS UH3 MH007755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 1979, Marvin Zelen proposed a new design for randomized clinical trials intended to facilitate clinicians' and patients' participation. The defining innovation of Zelen's proposal was random assignment of treatment prior to patient or participant consent. Following randomization, a participant would receive information and asked to consent to the assigned treatment.

methodsThis narrative review examined recent examples of Zelen design trials evaluating clinical and public health interventions.

resultsZelen designs have often been applied to questions regarding real-world treatment or intervention effects under conditions of incomplete adherence. Examples include evaluating outreach or engagement interventions (especially for stigmatized conditions), evaluating treatments for which benefit may vary according to participant motivation, and situations when assignment to a control or usual care condition might prompt a disappointment effect. Specific practical considerations determine whether a Zelen design is scientifically appropriate or practicable. Zelen design trials usually depend on identifying participants automatically from existing records rather than by advertising, referral, or active recruitment. Assessments of baseline or prognostic characteristics usually depend on available records data rather than research-specific assessments. Because investigators must consider how exposure to treatments or interventions might bias ascertainment of outcomes, assessment of outcomes from routinely created records is often necessary. A Zelen design requires a waiver of the usual requirement for informed consent prior to random assignment of treatment. The Revised Common Rule includes specific criteria for such a waiver, and those criteria are most often met for evaluation of a low-risk and potentially beneficial intervention added to usual care. Investigators and Institutional Review Boards must also consider whether the scientific or public health benefit of a Zelen design trial outweighs the autonomy interests of potential participants. Analysis of Zelen trials compares outcomes according to original assignment, regardless of any refusal to accept or participate in the assigned treatment.

conclusionsA Zelen design trial assesses the real-world consequences of a specific strategy to prompt or promote uptake of a specific treatment. While such trials are poorly suited to address explanatory or efficacy questions, they are often preferred for addressing pragmatic or policy questions.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentResearch DesignEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformed consentRandomized trialZelen

Identifiers

PMID34404466
PMCPMC8371763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.