• 목록
• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 무료프라그마틱 체험 메타 (Bookmarksusa.Com) physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious 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 on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of 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 indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials could 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). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to recruit participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and 프라그마틱 정품인증; More, follow-up. They found that 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 rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valuable and valid results.