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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians in order to cause distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

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

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or 프라그마틱 순위 the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific nor sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms could indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 무료체험 (Bookmarkplaces.com) competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions, 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.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.