• 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 distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians in order to result in distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example 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. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and 프라그마틱 정품 published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in 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 drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 사이트, hop over to this website, domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ 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 may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence 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 score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valuable and valid results.