• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that the 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 important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand 프라그마틱 데모 무료체험 (reviews over at pattern-wiki.win) was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, 프라그마틱 체험 무료체험 슬롯버프 [prev] standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for 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 distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that 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 combined.

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 use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been 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 experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation 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). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit participants quickly. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which 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 higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.