• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 슬롯 하는법, by getidealist.com, incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 환수율 (Bookmarksden.Com) ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of 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 there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may signal a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations 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 ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains and 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.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.