• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Studies that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could lead to distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim 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 concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Therefore, 프라그마틱 게임 pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the principal outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a binary attribute. Some 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. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice and are only considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or 프라그마틱 게임 misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may 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 results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, 프라그마틱 순위 무료스핀; oppomedical.Ru, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts 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

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they include populations of patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, 프라그마틱 게임 and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to recruit participants quickly. In addition certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any 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 that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.