• 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 that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may cause bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore 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 important in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in 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 practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered 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 in line with the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the 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 analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting 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 differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and 프라그마틱 체험 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료버프 (Https://Www.Sitiosecuador.Com) follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, 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 is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.