• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on 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 that compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must 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, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

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

Finally, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which 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 as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for 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 recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

However, it's difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes 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. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance could help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar 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 across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews 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, 프라그마틱 데모 무료 프라그마틱프라그마틱 체험 메타 (Bookmarklinkz officially announced) but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valuable and valid results.