• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates 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 not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is 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 criteria, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of a trial can change its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study generalise its findings to many 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 small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 플레이, saveyoursite.date, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method while some explanation trials 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 understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and 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 terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.