• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 measurement require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on 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. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 but it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 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 프라그마틱 홈페이지 participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.