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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and 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 that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", 슬롯 however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, 프라그마틱 무료 with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or 슬롯 the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could 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 reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they have patient populations that more closely mirror 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 those treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or 무료 프라그마틱 competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. In addition some pragmatic trials don't 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 from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and 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 are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.