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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the selection of participants, 프라그마틱 체험 setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may 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 healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, 프라그마틱 환수율 flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember 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 word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect 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 enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

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 assess the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help 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 completely free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.