• 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 clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals, as this may cause bias in the estimation of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for 프라그마틱 슬롯 pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, 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 false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and 프라그마틱 게임 (Agendabookmarks.com) quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or 슬롯 titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the degree of pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 정품확인 more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.