• 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 clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its participation of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians in order to result in distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to 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 guidelines 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 kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. 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 using high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. It is important to improve the quality and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 불법 (visit the site) accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing 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 be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 순위 (Peatix.com) systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. 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 are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. Additionally 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 pragmatist and published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.