ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2024
Recommendations for monitoring adherence and fidelity in pragmatic trials based on experience in the Pain Management Collaboratory.
Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Monitoring in pragmatic trials lessons from the NIH pragmatic trials collaboratory.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMost pragmatic trials follow the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) criteria. The criteria specify unobtrusive measurement of participants' protocol adherence and practitioners' intervention fidelity but suggest no special monitoring strategies to assure trial integrity. We present experience with adherence/fidelity monitoring in the Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) and provide recommendations for their monitoring in pragmatic trials to preserve inferences of treatment comparisons.
methodsIn November 2021, we surveyed 10 of 11 originally funded PMC pragmatic trials to determine the extent to which adherence and fidelity data were being monitored.
resultsOf the 10 PMC trials, 8 track adherence/fidelity. The electronic health record is the most frequent source for monitoring adherence (7/10) and fidelity (5/10). Most adherence data are used to monitor participant engagement with the trial intervention (4/10) and are reviewed by study teams (8/10) and often with a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) (5/10). Half of the trials (5/10) reported using fidelity data for feedback/training; such data are not shared with a DSMB (0/10). Only 2 of 10 trials reported having prespecified guidance or rules around adherence/fidelity (eg, stopping rules or thresholds for corrective action, such as retraining).
conclusionsAs a best practice for pragmatic trials, we recommend early and regular adherence/fidelity monitoring to determine whether intervention delivery is as intended. We propose a 2-stage process with thresholds for intervening and triggers for conducting a formal futility analysis if adherence and fidelity are not maintained. The level of monitoring should be unobtrusive for both participants and those delivering the intervention; resulting data should be reviewed by an independent DSMB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.