• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, open data platform and 프라그마틱 플레이 - relevant resource site, infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as 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 should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared 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 invasive procedures or those with potential serious adverse events. 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, 프라그마틱 슬롯 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims about 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 pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain 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 important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. 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 reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials don't have 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 self-labeled as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 확인법 (pdc.edu) higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.