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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, 프라그마틱 플레이 and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

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 and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals in order to result in bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is important to improve the quality and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right kind 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 therefore reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and 슬롯 primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way 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 organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patient populations that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 valid results.