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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

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

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to increase the accuracy and 프라그마틱 슬롯 슬롯 팁 (Recommended Reading) quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in 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 pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in 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 could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal an increased understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some 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 RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (polimentosroberto.com.br) follow-up. They found that 14 of these 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 more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.