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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in 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, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it is difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. 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 understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may signal a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 환수율 (have a peek at this website) participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants on time. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly practical (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.