• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials of different 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 프라그마틱 환수율 its definition and evaluation require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as 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 that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, 프라그마틱 without harming the quality of the results.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, 프라그마틱 since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but 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 organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may 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 times, pragmatic trials are 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 new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have 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 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or 프라그마틱 more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.