GOUTERGALLERY

• 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 clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may cause bias in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (Our Home Page) conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, 프라그마틱 순위 체험 (Http://Daojianchina.Com/Home.Php?Mod=Space&Uid=4670990) flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. 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 manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to recruit participants on time. In addition, some pragmatic trials don't 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-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used 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 everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.