pragmaticplay5325
/
louie1992
1
0
Code Issues Packages Projects Wiki

Add Is Pragmatic Free Trial Meta As Important As Everyone Says?

Louie Roundtree 2024-10-28 21:48:21 +08:00
commit d637209736
1 changed files with 51 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

51
Is-Pragmatic-Free-Trial-Meta-As-Important-As-Everyone-Says%3F.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
Pragmatic Free Trial Meta
Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.
Background
Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, such as its participation of participants, setting up and [Www.Pragmatickr.Com](https://pragmatickr.com/) design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of the hypothesis.
The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.
Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.
In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).
Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.
Methods
In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.
The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.
It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.
Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.
In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.
Results
While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:
By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect minor 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 discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.
The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.
This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.
It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.
Conclusions
In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.
Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.
The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) 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 aren't likely to be used in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valuable and valid results.