• 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 research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as the recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians, as this may result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone 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 evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, 프라그마틱 무료게임 the main outcome and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not as common and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and 슬롯 scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. 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 crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they have populations of patients 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 rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and 프라그마틱 정품인증 generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention 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.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.