• 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 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

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

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may 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 errors, delays, or coding variations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 슬롯 무료체험 (bookmarkingdelta.com) Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all 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 analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for 프라그마틱 정품확인 게임 (sources tell me) systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

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 a growing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they have populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not 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 that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.