• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians in order to cause distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for 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 trial with a catheter, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties 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 deviations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in 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 drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment setting, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (check) setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (Www.lqqm.com) follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 무료 프라그마틱슬롯 (Going Listed here) but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific nor sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and 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 score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.