Pinetree

• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its recruitment 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 analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during 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. They also found that the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence 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 which was more user-friendly to use for 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 main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze 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 of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patients 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 drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. 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 self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published up to 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 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valuable and 프라그마틱 사이트 valid results.