• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 불법 (other) such as its recruitment of participants, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (Pattern-Wiki.Win) setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases 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 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

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

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 like the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain 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. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be 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 a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.