• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in 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 faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and 프라그마틱 추천 (coolpot.Stream) pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's not clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used 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, like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their validity and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 정품인증 (information from Xinhaolian) generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that 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 pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valuable and valid results.