• 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 a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as the participation of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians, as this may cause bias in the estimation of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

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

It is, however, difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the norm, and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed 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 but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method, 프라그마틱 무료 whereas some explanatory 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 merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally 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-described themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, 프라그마틱 정품확인 flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.