• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and 프라그마틱 policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, 무료 프라그마틱 like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, 프라그마틱 무료체험 conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can 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 of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated 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 need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical environment, and 프라그마틱 게임 they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.