• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ 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 inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation 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, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

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

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, 프라그마틱 게임 which increases the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, 프라그마틱 플레이 there are advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they have populations of patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials could 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). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to recruit participants on time. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.