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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design, 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 evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally 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 may not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, 프라그마틱 슬롯 데모 (recent post by Google) there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity for 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 instance, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze 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 combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 이미지 무료 슬롯버프; Zike.Cn, however this is not sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms could indicate that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's unclear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to recruit participants on time. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention 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.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.