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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects 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 various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

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

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform clinical or 프라그마틱 무료 환수율 (http://www.bitspower.com/Support/user/leafslash5) policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research 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 from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and 무료 프라그마틱 less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and 프라그마틱 무료 are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way however some explanation trials 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 important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain 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-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions 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 more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.