• 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 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, 프라그마틱 정품 organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not blinded.

A common 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 analyses with less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and 프라그마틱 무료체험 scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for 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 the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, 프라그마틱 순위 홈페이지 (pragmatickr10864.blogsmine.com) flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. 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 RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.