• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, 프라그마틱 정품 the recruit-ment, organisation, 프라그마틱 무료체험 flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or 프라그마틱 protocol changes during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료체험 메타 (perfectworld.wiki) or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these words in abstracts and titles 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 the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patient populations that are more similar to those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could 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). The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the pragmatism of these trials. 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 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.