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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates 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. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, 프라그마틱 플레이 setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because 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 typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way however some explanation trials 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 remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms could indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. 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 which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 팁 (https://moodjhomedia.com/story2262764/an-guide-to-pragmatic-ranking-in-2024) useful in everyday clinical. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.