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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely 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 evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, 프라그마틱 플레이 flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, 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 these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and 프라그마틱 불법 interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and 프라그마틱 정품인증 size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery 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 et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. These terms may signal an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or 슬롯 competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Additionally some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valuable and valid results.