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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 슈가러쉬 (read page) however, is not used in a consistent manner and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 its definition and measurement need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared 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 when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 and enabling the trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.