• 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, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed 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 strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as the participation of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

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:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program 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 and 프라그마틱 정품 불법 (maps.google.Com.ar) colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 however it is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's not clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and 프라그마틱 무료체험 financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.