• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

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

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related 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 try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 플레이 (https://bookmark-nation.Com) standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable 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 healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific attribute. Some 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. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or 프라그마틱 conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and 프라그마틱 follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) 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 higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.