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

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, 프라그마틱 the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians in order to cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing study size and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could 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 popular and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.