• 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 cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of a trial can change its score in pragmatism. In addition, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슬롯 프라그마틱 추천 (Gogogobookmarks.com) 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 슬롯 무료 (https://digibookmarks.Com/story18048765/12-companies-leading-The-way-in-pragmatic-free-trial-slot-buff) conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they include populations of patients that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are 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 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.