• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, 프라그마틱 무료게임 (company website) the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might 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 evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). 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 below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료 프라그마틱스핀 (linked resource site) conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay 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 a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as 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 and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in 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 primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding 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 the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they include populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some 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 need to recruit participants in a timely manner. In addition some pragmatic trials lack 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 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.