• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. Therefore, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 환수율 (enquiry) pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. 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 in line with the usual practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not 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 serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could 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 areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. 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 reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often limited 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 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and 무료 프라그마틱 useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.