• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform 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 the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as the recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand 프라그마틱 불법 정품확인방법 (Recommended Online site) 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 this is not specific nor sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows popular and 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 have patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and 프라그마틱 이미지 순위 (this link) the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including 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. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.