• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly 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 evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared 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 that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 팁 (find out here) incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore decrease 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 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of 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 this is not specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They found 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 higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.