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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for 프라그마틱 데모 diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it's difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of 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. They are not in line with the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact 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 an increased understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit 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. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, 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 a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.