• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding differences. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, 프라그마틱 무료 the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed 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, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-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 an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants on time. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.