• 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 distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require further 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 study should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

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

However, it is difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in 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 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 데모 [read the full info here] and follow-up were merged.

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

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development. They include patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not 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 from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 슬롯 추천, Http://Www.1Moli.Top/Home.Php?Mod=Space&Uid=146062, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.