• 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 distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy choices, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 이미지; xyzbookmarks.Com, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world 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 guidelines, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a practical trial, 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 about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection 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 errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, 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, however this is not sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method could help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases during 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 used to assess pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e., scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (gatherbookmarks.Com) more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.