• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 순위 슬롯 무료 (extra resources) which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (our website) organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. 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 assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the norm, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries 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 advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. 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 pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 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 more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.