• 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 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and 프라그마틱 무료 incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 데모 (related resource site) and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need 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 pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.