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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits 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. The term "pragmatic" however, 슬롯 (Highly recommended Reading) is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure 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 criteria for pragmatism, but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and 무료 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (watch this video) method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore 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, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. For instance, the right 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 thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, 프라그마틱 추천 (watch this video) but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however, 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 doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms could indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's not clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they cannot ensure that a study is 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 valid and useful outcomes.