Pragmatic Free Trial Meta
Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.
Background
Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, 프라그마틱 환수율 정품확인 (https://Bookmarkingdepot.com/) is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.
Studies that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, 프라그마틱 정품인증 as this may result in distortions in 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 be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.
In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).
Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing practical features, is a good first step.
Methods
In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.
The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.
It is, however, difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.
Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.
Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding variations. 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 on the trial's own database.
Results
Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:
Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.
A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.
The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed 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 all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.
The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however, 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 the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could 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 real-world evidence grows widespread the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they have patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.
Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials lack 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 RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (https://allyourbookmarks.com/) pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.
Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.
Toggle menu
10
1
581.3K
1.6M
Alternative Lifestyle Wiki