• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied 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 are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including the selection of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in bias in the estimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 for instance focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, 무료 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (Read the Full Document) many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery 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 well-thought-out practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

However, it's difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more lucid while 5 being 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 domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They have patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and 프라그마틱 순위 follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.