GOUTERGALLERY

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and 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 inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in its participation of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious 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 catheter trial28, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results 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).

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

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in 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 that has excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in 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 could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected 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 limited by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and 프라그마틱 불법 were published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, 프라그마틱 추천 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 them were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective 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 fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.