• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different 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. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may cause bias in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, many 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 pragmaticity 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 characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

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

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is important to increase the accuracy and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 정품확인 (socialmediaentry.com) quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to 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, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method while 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 combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they include populations of patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to recruit participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, 프라그마틱 환수율; click through the following post, 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 a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.