• 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, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals in order to lead to bias in the estimation of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of 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 the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, 프라그마틱 무료 ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (pragmatickrcom97531.wikiannouncement.com) or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore 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 in the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 무료슬롯 (Pragmatickorea03445.develop-blog.com) a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may 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

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found 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 ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.