• 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 cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve invasive procedures or 프라그마틱 데모 have potentially harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary 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 notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. 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. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or 프라그마틱 무료 coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases 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 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms could indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's unclear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., 프라그마틱 무료 existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to recruit participants quickly. In addition certain pragmatic trials lack 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 pragmatist and published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valuable and valid results.