• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that have 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. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or clinicians, as this may lead to bias in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower 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 decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial 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 the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (visit this website link) delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They have patient populations that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily clinical. However they do not ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.