• 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 permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may 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 the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (view it now) ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in 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 distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

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 are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions 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.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and 프라그마틱 무료체험 relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.