• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research 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 recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within 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, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 추천 (grainrange5.bravejournal.net) a majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing 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.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험, Historydb.date, treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

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

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

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. These terms could indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation 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). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Additionally some pragmatic trials don't 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 that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.