• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at baseline.

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

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for 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 analyze their data in the intention to treat manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember 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 that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they include populations of patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to recruit participants on time. Additionally some pragmatic trials don't 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 정품확인 (Www.stes.tyc.edu.Tw) eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.