전체검색

• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials 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 further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

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

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior 프라그마틱 무료체험 to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, 프라그마틱 체험 and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, 프라그마틱 and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or 프라그마틱 환수율 competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.