• 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 distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve 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 suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and 프라그마틱 무료체험 requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

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

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 protocol modifications during the course of 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. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance could help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process 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 note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, 프라그마틱 무료체험 these tests could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete 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 pragmatic trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.