• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates 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 clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 including recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 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 manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. 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 but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and 프라그마틱 추천 incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the norm and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials 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 reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) 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 broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.