• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially 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, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible 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 kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in 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, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier 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 main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 프라그마틱 슬롯, https://medhealthprofessionals.com/, following-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 is an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to recruit participants quickly. Additionally, some pragmatic trials don't 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 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, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.