• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and 프라그마틱 무료게임 assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 무료 슬롯 (just click the up coming article) functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical 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. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in 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 areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a binary attribute. 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. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding variations. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and 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 choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patient populations that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.