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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for 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 trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 including the participation of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and 프라그마틱 Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

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

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. 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 in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by 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 pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 title. These terms may indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria and 프라그마틱 무료체험 flexibility in recruitment as well as 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.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be present in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.