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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant 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 should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

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

However, it is difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 and the limited accessibility and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that 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. Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants on time. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 환수율 - World-News.wiki, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valuable and valid results.