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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials 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 and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, 프라그마틱 플레이 delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals, as this may result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual 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).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, 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 could be designed with good pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome for 프라그마틱 순위 these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 슬롯 - Suggested Website, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are 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 rather than experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed differences 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 pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.