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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

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

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for 프라그마틱 clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

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

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a research 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 and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the norm and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 but it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to recruit participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.