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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may result in distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their 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 studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 - read full article, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program 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 et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 카지노 - why not find out more - dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have 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 published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.