• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as the participation of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, 프라그마틱 게임 analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some 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 discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, 프라그마틱 데모 like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.