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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with 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 not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

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

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (Www.google.com.pk) follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is, 프라그마틱 무료체험 since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. 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. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built 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 all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) 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 are not likely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.