• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world 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. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, 프라그마틱 플레이 pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to assess how practical a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the norm and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to recruit participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

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

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.