• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

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

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost and 프라그마틱 추천 allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 정품인증 정품 확인법 (www.google.com.om) clinical hypothesis, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and 프라그마틱 데모 domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. 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 reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.