• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, open data platform and infrastructure that supports 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 analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 슬롯 조작 (Dahannbbs.Com) its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may lead to bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition 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 development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, 프라그마틱 불법 analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

However, it is difficult to judge how practical a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for 프라그마틱 환수율 differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and 프라그마틱 체험 cost, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They include populations of patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.