• 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 enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may cause bias in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 the primary outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. 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. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature 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 risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, 프라그마틱 정품인증 studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials 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 combined.

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, but it is neither specific nor sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and 프라그마틱 체험 - natural-Bookmark.com - financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, some 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 RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.