• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing 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 conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish 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 was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

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

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, 프라그마틱 이미지 they have patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and 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 quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

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, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which consists of the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valuable and valid results.