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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could result in distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or 슬롯 coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, and ideally by using national registries 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 are 100% pragmatist There are advantages of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials can also 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 sensitivity, 프라그마틱 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat manner while some explanation trials 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 study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.