• 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 프라그마틱 순위 프라그마틱 사이트 (here) infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore 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 for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end these trials should strive to make their results as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the term's use should be standardized. The creation 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 clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like 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, as well as a higher chance 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 could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during 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 degree of pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.