• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and 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 patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might 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 evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) 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 method of missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

In addition the pragmatic trials may 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 delays, errors or coding differences. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

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 research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, 프라그마틱 무료게임 and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or 프라그마틱 슬롯 title. These terms may indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they include patient populations that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to recruit participants on time. Additionally certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday practice. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 정품인증 the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.