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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and 프라그마틱 evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates 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 inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows 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 can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, it's difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 most were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised 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 of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they 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 on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants quickly restricts 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 the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.