• 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 cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and 프라그마틱 무료 its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could result in bias in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 프라그마틱 데모 [his comment is here] however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic 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 have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery 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 of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method 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.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.