• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try 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 be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome 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 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and are only considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 정품 확인법; Visit Home Page, delays or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to expand its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to 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 was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.