• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. 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 patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

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

It is, however, difficult to judge 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. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and 프라그마틱 무료게임 can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and 슬롯 interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help 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.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, 프라그마틱 추천 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they include patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

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 the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.