• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections 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 results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 공식홈페이지 (our homepage) but the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding differences. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (listen to this podcast) pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

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

This difference in primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.