• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 플레이 정품확인 (Nutris.Net) clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for 프라그마틱 환수율 trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as relevant to actual 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).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have 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 can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting 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.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation 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 important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. The right type of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference 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 domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms could indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patient populations 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 the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (google.co.Vi) as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism 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 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 have populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.