• 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 is a platform that collects and 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 employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

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

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, 프라그마틱 (Bookmarkspy explains) or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 정품 사이트확인 (Bookmarkspy.Com) the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up 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 this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, 프라그마틱 추천 that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.