• 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 permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed 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 it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining 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 thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, 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 usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower 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 data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging 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 primary outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is, 프라그마틱 사이트 however, difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also 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.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat manner while some explanation 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 merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. 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, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 환수율 - listfav.com, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.