• 목록
• 답변
• 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 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on 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. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its participation of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and 프라그마틱 이미지 data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트버프 (telegra.Ph) policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the norm and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100% 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. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. 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 systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and 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 high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.