• 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 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 with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 프라그마틱 무료체험 (vuf.Minagricultura.gov.Co) functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Additionally practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The 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 manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with 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, for example, the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed variations 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 themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 and follow-up. They discovered 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 have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.