• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from various health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, 무료 프라그마틱 with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 organization and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or 프라그마틱 conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not 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 lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at baseline.

Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to 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. Their framework included nine domains, 프라그마틱 플레이 each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain 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 remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is reflected 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 increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. In addition certain 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 pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.