• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals, as this may result in bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, 프라그마틱 체험 for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring 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 aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 환수율 logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, 프라그마틱 사이트 thereby increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular 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 may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like, can help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-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 are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows widespread the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they include patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader 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 variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valuable and valid results.