• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and 프라그마틱 슬롯 its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting and design of the intervention, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

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

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a great 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 situations. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial 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 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials might 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). The necessity to recruit people quickly restricts the sample size and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, 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 RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or 프라그마틱 정품 highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in the daily clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valuable and valid results.