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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians as this could lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. 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 licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally 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 doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic, there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in 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 lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear if this is reflected in 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 clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations which are more closely resembling those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method could help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that arise from 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, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition 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 pragmatic trials. Additionally certain 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 RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 데모 which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, 프라그마틱 순위 정품 확인법 [one-time offer] which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday practice. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.