• 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 and other design features.

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 and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, 프라그마틱 게임 not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, 프라그마틱 환수율 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

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

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for 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 its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less 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 the baseline.

In addition the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and 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 recruit participants in a timely manner. In addition certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.