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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians in order to cause distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could 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 measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and 프라그마틱 follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

However, it's difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and 프라그마틱 플레이 interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to expand its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore lessen 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 Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that 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 crucial to keep in mind 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, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms could indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 however it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They have patient populations that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and valid results.