• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present 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 flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received 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 damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 무료스핀 example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, 프라그마틱 환수율 as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however, 프라그마틱 do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.