• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, 무료 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율체험, he said, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. The right type of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is reflected 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 increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they have patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Additionally, some pragmatic trials lack 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 self-labeled as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.