• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with 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 not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 including the participation of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians as this could result in bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or 프라그마틱 플레이 physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating 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 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however 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 isn't clear if this is manifested in the content 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 randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patients which are more closely resembling 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 approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering 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 practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in clinical practice, and 프라그마틱 they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valuable and valid results.