• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its participation 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 analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

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

However, it's difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료게임 (had me going) a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

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

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in 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.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, 프라그마틱 플레이 and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because 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 which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 existing medications), and they depend on participants' self-reports 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 coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example 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). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.