• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, 프라그마틱 순위 setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could lead to bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

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 explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and 슬롯 colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study, and 프라그마틱 이미지 enabling the trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay 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 for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, 프라그마틱 순위 follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and 프라그마틱 데모 카지노 (Championsleage.review) following-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they have patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to recruit participants quickly. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have 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 published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday clinical. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.