• 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 distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

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 evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could result in bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different 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 vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

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 result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as 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 evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (Sovren.media) ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the main 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 damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment 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 does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore 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 a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological or 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and 프라그마틱 순위 setting up, 프라그마틱 체험 the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly 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.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for 프라그마틱 정품인증 홈페이지 (Yourbookmark.Stream) eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However they do not 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 does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.