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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, 프라그마틱 ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its participation of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, 프라그마틱 이미지 as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or 프라그마틱 순위 clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand, used 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 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 analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, 프라그마틱 pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to determine how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or 프라그마틱 무료게임 logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the norm, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development. They have patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and 프라그마틱 they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.