• 목록
• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research 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 recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians as this could cause bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

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

Despite these criteria, 프라그마틱 무료체험 many RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, 프라그마틱 errors or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms could indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

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

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of 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 an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.