• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians in order to result in bias in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim 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 concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism 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, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 the primary outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have 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 as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials 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 type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, 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 et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms may indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They involve populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

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 determine pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered 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 broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 applicable in everyday clinical. However they do not ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.