• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, 프라그마틱 플레이 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 체험 (028Bbs.Com) design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may cause bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to determine how practical a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial 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 and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the norm and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research 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 possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process 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 increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. 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 medical care. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

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

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.