ArticleBMC primary care2025
Provider experiences with and attitudes about an embedded pragmatic clinical trial.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02185417 (CSP #597 - Diuretic Comparison Project), which is not on this 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.
CSP #597 - Diuretic Comparison Project
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) was a pragmatic clinical trial comparing rates of cardiovascular events between hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone. VA primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients were participants in the study. Veterans ≥ 65 years taking hydrochlorothiazide were randomized to continue on hydrochlorothiazide or switch to chlorthalidone. Participating providers could decline the randomization of their patients. Providers were surveyed about their experience with DCP, and to ascertain providers' understanding of and attitudes towards embedded pragmatic trials.
methodsA questionnaire was emailed to PCPs that provided informed consent to participate in the study. The survey asked about provider experience with the trial including interest in the study question, awareness of the study and educational materials, impact on the provider-patient relationship, burden of study participation, and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials. Respondents could also add free text comments.
resultsThere were 180 completed surveys. Of those, most found the trial question of interest (91%) and found the time required to participate in the trial was reasonable (67%). Only 2 (1%) felt the study had a negative impact on the provider-patient relationship. 97% of providers were as comfortable with (59%) or more comfortable with (32%) DCP compared to traditional randomized controlled trials.
conclusionResponding providers' experience with DCP and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials were positive. Primary care providers indicated willingness to participate in future pragmatic trials if burden is low and it does not negatively impact patient care. Results support continued use of pragmatic embedded clinical trials in primary care. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT02185417. Registered 9 July 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02185417 .
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.