• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

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

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes 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 symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation, 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 that has excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Additionally practical trials can 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 prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They include populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to recruit participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that 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. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.