• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in the participation of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals as this could lead to bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-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 development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 환수율 정품 확인법 (bookmarkbirth.com) follow-up domains received 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 high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

However, it is difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (mouse click the next internet page) flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.