• 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 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 analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of 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 however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 prone to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, ideally by using national registries 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 clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organization, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 [Maps.Google.Nr] flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does 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, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.