• 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 analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, 프라그마틱 플레이 pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their results as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described 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 various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) 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 the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is, however, difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or 프라그마틱 데모 ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, 프라그마틱 플레이 setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and 프라그마틱 domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average 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 most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat way however 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 important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not 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, however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they include populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

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 be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.