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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and 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 research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals as this could cause distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible 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 colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms may signal an increased awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying 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 likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (check out here) flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 highly sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.