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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals, as this may result in bias in estimates 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 be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on 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 reduce costs. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of 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 defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 사이트; Pragmatickr44207.Nytechwiki.Com, the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Additionally practical trials can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, 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 studies can also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 정품확인 primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's not clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also restricts 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 trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.