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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. 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.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 assessing pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 홈페이지; https://xs.xylvip.Com/home.php?Mod=space&uid=1654402, follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

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

Additionally the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials 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 a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the importance 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 have patient populations which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases in 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 using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or 프라그마틱 플레이 pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valuable and valid results.