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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects 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 situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

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

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting 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 adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding differences. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-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 term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, 프라그마틱 게임 and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 무료게임 (Forum.Ressourcerie.Fr) generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated 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 need to recruit participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 applicable to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and valid results.