• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 슬롯 무료 (Www.chinaodoo.Net) clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the selection of participants, 프라그마틱 무료 setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic 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 reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, 프라그마틱 사이트 슬롯체험 - Bookmarks4.Men - intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is evident 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 trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method could help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

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, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could 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). The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, 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.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.