• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of 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 the hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the norm and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 불법 (click the up coming website page) lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in 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 does not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 추천 (Read Even more) 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.