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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly 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 measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough proof of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may cause bias in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, but 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 using excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it's difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible 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 created an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development. They have patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 이미지 (Full Content) and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants on time. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.