• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, 프라그마틱 무료게임 flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 프라그마틱 무료게임 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료게임 (https://www.google.ci/) but that is not precise nor 프라그마틱 무료게임 sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, 무료 프라그마틱 pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.