• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It 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 with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may cause bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or 프라그마틱 슬롯 coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in 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 main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a 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 this is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts 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 the importance of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 which includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.