• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that 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 measurement require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to 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 guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to errors, 프라그마틱 환수율 무료체험 메타 (Www.Primeiralinha.com.br) delays or coding differences. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's not clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows widespread the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

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

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.