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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a 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 allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially 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 monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 추천 follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the usual 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 attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

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 explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze 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 merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and 프라그마틱 슬롯 titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. 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 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials 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 financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.