• 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 evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual 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 criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. 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 these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures 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 areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

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 study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to expand its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis 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 that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (read this blog article from Metooo) primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, 프라그마틱 they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

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

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.