코엔원

• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, 프라그마틱 플레이 무료체험 슬롯버프 (Anotepad.Com) determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the norm and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 delivery of intervention and follow-up, 프라그마틱 정품 as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (https://strange-mccullough.thoughtlanes.net/ten-things-You-learned-in-kindergarden-that-will-help-you-get-free-pragmatic) colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to recruit participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.