GOUTERGALLERY

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try 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 focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

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 included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, 프라그마틱 intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and 슬롯 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 a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and 프라그마틱 추천 titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they include patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯 하는법 - Morphomics.science, participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.