• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the primary outcome and 프라그마틱 불법 (hangoutshelp.net blog entry) method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the norm and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific nor sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, 무료 프라그마틱 and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valuable and valid results.