• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as the recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or clinicians, as this may result in bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for 프라그마틱 정품확인 정품 확인법 (Bookmarkingfeed.Com) patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less 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 provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation, 프라그마틱 데모 flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

However, it's difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

In addition, 프라그마틱 이미지 pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

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

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often limited by the need to recruit participants on time. Additionally, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.