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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (a cool way to improve) clinical practice decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, 프라그마틱 게임 (bioimagingcore.be) conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the norm, and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, 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 baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patient populations that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases 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 utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. Additionally certain pragmatic trials do not 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 published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility 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 that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.