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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

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 with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). 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 procedure for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, 슬롯 or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding differences. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic There are advantages of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for 프라그마틱 정품 systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (recommended site) sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.