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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

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

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that 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, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program 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 of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether 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 compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 - Telegra.Ph - financial incentives or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 슈가러쉬 (Freeok`s statement on its official blog) competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't 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 were published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valuable and valid results.