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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies 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 assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including the participation of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized 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 in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and 프라그마틱 무료 time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes 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 as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity, like, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

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 a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal an increased understanding of pragmatism in titles and 프라그마틱 슬롯 (Bookmarkrange.com) abstracts, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development. They include populations of patients that more closely mirror the ones who are 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 overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily clinical. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.