• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could cause bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료슬롯 (why not try here) so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible 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 guidelines, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the gathering 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 variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, 무료 프라그마틱 pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 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 an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valuable and valid results.