• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and 프라그마틱 체험 게임 (www.zhumeng6.com) clinical practice decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including the selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals as this could lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for 프라그마틱 홈페이지, Mybookmark.Stream, hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition 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 a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and 프라그마틱 (http://120.zsluoping.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=1242196) a higher chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often limited by the need to recruit participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.