• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally 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 for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or 슬롯 have 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, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 체험 (Suggested Online site) on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is 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 which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features 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. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

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

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

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability 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). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack 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 up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention, 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.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and 프라그마틱 useful in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.