• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for 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 are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians in order to lead to bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy 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 use of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in 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, 프라그마틱 정품 flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 체험 (use guidemysocial.com) but the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is, however, difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could 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 the licensing. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the collection 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 essential to improve the quality and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 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 of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus reduce a trial's power 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 a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

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 increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patients that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (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 more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.