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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of 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 defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and 프라그마틱 정품확인 홈페이지 (Mirrorbookmarks.Com) follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. 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. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For example, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or 프라그마틱 무료게임 compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. 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 that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which 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 higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.