• 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 allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. 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 clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and 무료 프라그마틱 delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, 프라그마틱 무료게임 as well as primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might 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 data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the primary 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, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain 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 the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 프라그마틱 순위 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program 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 and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness 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 are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to recruit participants on time. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However they do not ensure that a study is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.