• 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 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 of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations 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, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

However, it is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the norm and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 체험 (Suggested Site) pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, 프라그마틱 순위 무료게임 [recommended site] but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to recruit participants quickly. In addition certain pragmatic trials lack 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.