• 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 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 with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as 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 instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy 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 must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a 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. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and 프라그마틱 사이트 무료 (Going On this page) their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had 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 explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method, 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 follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants on time. 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 self-labeled as pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.