• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates 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 require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

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 kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. 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 studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the norm and are only called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 pragmatic trials can also 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 are susceptible to delays, 프라그마틱 errors or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registry databases 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, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat manner however some explanation 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 remember 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 title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases associated with the use of volunteers and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected 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 limited by the need to recruit participants on time. Additionally some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as 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 that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.