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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or 프라그마틱 추천 coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They include patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 사이트 (click) above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.