• 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 cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various 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 inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

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

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for 무료 프라그마틱 정품 사이트, Suggested Site, decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced results and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

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

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary 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 was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development. They have patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. In addition certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and 프라그마틱 플레이 follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.