• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of 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 concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at baseline.

Additionally practical trials can present challenges in the collection and 프라그마틱 정품확인 interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous 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 the 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 ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and 프라그마틱 게임 (webnowmedia.Com) domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could 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 areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and 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, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.