자유게시판

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, 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 great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and 프라그마틱 데모 method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 (Olderworkers.Com.au) clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could 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

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. Additionally, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

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

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valuable and valid results.