-
vinyljeans3 zveřejnil aktualizaci před 5 měsíců, 3 týdny
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 analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.
Background
Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term “pragmatic” is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough proof of the hypothesis.
Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. 프라그마틱 슬롯 can result in an overestimation of the effect of treatment. 프라그마틱 슬롯 should also seek to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.
Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.
In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).
Many RCTs that don’t meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing practical features is a great first step.
Methods
In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.
The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.
It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn’t have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.
Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates’ differences at the baseline.
Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.
Results
Although the definition of pragmatism doesn’t require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:
By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial’s power to detect small treatment effects.
Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up 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 which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.
The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.
It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that employ the word ‘pragmatic,’ either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it’s unclear whether this is evident in the content.
Conclusions
In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they have patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.
Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren’t due to biases during the trial.
The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.
Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, but they don’t necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.