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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across 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. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could lead to bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, 프라그마틱 체험 many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). 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 were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term "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, but it isn't clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they include patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 (Https://pragmatickrcom19753.boyblogguide.com/) adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.