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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

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 clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect 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 a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation 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 aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. In this way, 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁무료 (Pragmatickr79999.anchor-Blog.com) pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in 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 received high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

In addition the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 delays or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. In addition, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean 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 produce valid and useful results.