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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the level 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. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the gathering 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 important to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 데모 (Yd.Yichang.Cc) delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way 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 remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve patients that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to recruit participants on time. Practical trials aren't always equipped with 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 that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and 프라그마틱 정품 a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.