• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into 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 that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, 프라그마틱 ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to 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 essential to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor 무료 프라그마틱 effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference 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 systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 팁 (click the next page) or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences 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 were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (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 higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valuable and valid results.