• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for 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 becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 슈가러쉬 (guideyoursocial.com) physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria 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 could lead to false claims of pragmatism, 프라그마틱 플레이 and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial may 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 discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 슬롯 (visit the site) settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that 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 merged.

It is important to understand that a 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, however this is not specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as 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 recruit participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely 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 relevant and relevant to everyday practice. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, 프라그마틱 무료 the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.