• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. 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.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that 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 patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. 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 these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some 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 found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or 프라그마틱 무료체험 conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations 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 prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat way, 프라그마틱 정품확인 (Https://lingeriebookmark.Com/) whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method could help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in 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.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.