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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, 프라그마틱 무료체험 for 프라그마틱 불법 example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes 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 licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is important to improve the quality and 프라그마틱 순위 게임 (from the Xojh blog) accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They found 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 score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.