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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world 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 assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the participation of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians as this could lead to distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features 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 achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which 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 reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they have populations of patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials don't 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions and 프라그마틱 환수율 정품확인; https://polisportal.ru/, follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial 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.