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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, a number of 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 false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (k12.instructure.com) pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

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

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 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 called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and 무료 프라그마틱 colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patient populations that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have 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 up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.