• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to lead to bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical 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 relationship in idealised settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 logistic modifications made during 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 licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 프라그마틱 정품 (Cheapbookmarking.com) 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, 프라그마틱 체험 (https://Gatherbookmarks.com/) flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials do not have 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-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valuable and valid results.