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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

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 assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 추천 (click the following web page) pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized environments. 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 these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding differences. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove the clinical or 프라그마틱 체험 physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and valid results.