• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) 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 were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

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 may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice, and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of 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 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials could 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., 무료 프라그마틱 industry trials). The need to recruit individuals quickly limits the sample size and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 the impact of many practical trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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 the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.