• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in bias in the estimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized 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 important in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research 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 contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them 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 research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to many different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to note 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, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 정품확인방법 (http://anipi-italia.org/forum/forums/users/deleterifle94) but this is not specific nor sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they have patient populations which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, 프라그마틱 체험 이미지 (Www.pdc.Edu) pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.