• 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, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that have 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. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major 프라그마틱 슬롯 distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could lead to bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. 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 patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could 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 may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism 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, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

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:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 체험 (maps.google.com.Ua) flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for 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 can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or 프라그마틱 체험 compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the 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-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.