• 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 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 provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires 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 actual clinical practice as possible, 무료 프라그마틱 including in the recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings 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 particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for 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 informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 추천 (https://maps.google.com.Sa/) delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and 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 increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials might 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). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials lack 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 self-labeled as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.