• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and 프라그마틱 게임 implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary 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 various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and 프라그마틱 체험 follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, it's difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist There are advantages 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 trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and 프라그마틱 무료체험 follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development, they have populations of patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to 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 프라그마틱 이미지 coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit participants on time. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday clinical. However they do not ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.