• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may 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 their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (https://mozillabd.science/wiki/Skaarupbooth8930) conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures 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, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were 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 results.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case 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, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting errors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 delays or coding errors. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had 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 most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

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 which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms 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

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They include patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and 프라그마틱 무료 a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.