• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, 슬롯 determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians as this could lead to bias in 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.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, 프라그마틱 게임 for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of 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 try to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, 프라그마틱 환수율 thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the results of trials can be translated more quickly 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 settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance 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 et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They involve populations of patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method could help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 however they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.