• 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 gathers and distributes clean 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 various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates 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 scored high. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance 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 baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also 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 errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 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 may be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, 프라그마틱 정품인증 무료게임 (https://Growthbookmarks.com/) decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not 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 not specific nor sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms could indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows popular and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to enroll participants on time. Additionally certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the degree of pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯 무료 (Opensocialfactory.Com) that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valuable and valid results.