• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for 프라그마틱 체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (218.201.25.104) multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't 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 result in misleading claims of pragmatism and 프라그마틱 환수율 슈가러쉬 - 124.222.48.203 - the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable 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 information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain 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 should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They have patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and valid results.