• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a variety 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 vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

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 different kinds and 프라그마틱 사이트 incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and 슬롯 colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increasing 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 can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms may signal a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or 프라그마틱 플레이 more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valuable and valid results.