• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, 프라그마틱 정품 determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 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 different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, 프라그마틱 무료체험 the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

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

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of 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 프라그마틱 데모 pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.