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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. 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 policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or 무료 프라그마틱 clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

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 different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

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

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

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Additionally 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. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges 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 susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse 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 organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). 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 manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve populations of patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain 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). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to enroll participants on time. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 사이트 - new content from Bookmarkoffire, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in the daily clinical. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.