• 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 shares cleaned 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, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as the recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for 프라그마틱 슬롯 conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, 프라그마틱 and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

However, it's difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 데모 (Guideyoursocial.com) conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, like, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly 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 difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) that use the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. 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 reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.