• 목록
• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting 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' differences at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the quality and 프라그마틱 정품확인 accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, 프라그마틱 이미지 불법 (Https://e-bookmarks.com/) with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, 프라그마틱 환수율 follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in 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 that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they have populations of patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to recruit participants quickly. Additionally certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.