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

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 permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor 프라그마틱 사이트 무료 - my response - the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

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

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features, is a good 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 settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, 프라그마틱 플레이 체험 (you can try Federatedjournals) or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (you can try Federatedjournals) titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They have populations of patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. In addition certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.