• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to 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, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, 프라그마틱 무료 but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found 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 explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

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 compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They include patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and 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. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.