• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

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 evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, 프라그마틱 정품확인 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge 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 usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and 프라그마틱 정품 불법 (Tongcheng.jingjincloud.Cn) are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and 프라그마틱 추천 (you could look here) conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may present challenges 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 delays, errors or coding differences. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the 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 from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.