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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and 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 with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and 프라그마틱 불법 implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

However, it is difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for 프라그마틱 무료체험 example could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind 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 term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they include populations of patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 무료체험 which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, 프라그마틱 무료체험 and follow-up. They discovered 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 score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.