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

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians, as this may cause bias in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic 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. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 무료슬롯 프라그마틱; https://anolink.com/?link=https://pragmatickr.com/, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it's difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

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

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows widespread, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, 프라그마틱 불법 but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and valid results.