• 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 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

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

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and 프라그마틱 불법 setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may indicate that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 titles, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They involve patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 추천 (menwiki.Men) and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday clinical practice, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.