솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

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

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and 프라그마틱 무료 design, the delivery and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians in order to lead to bias in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally 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 important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it is difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the norm and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier 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 distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested 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 clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve populations of patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications), and 프라그마틱 슬롯 they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. In addition, some pragmatic trials lack 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. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.