• 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 distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates 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 use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as the participation of participants, setting up and design, 슬롯 (bookmarkingace.com) the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians as this could lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

However, it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or 프라그마틱 순위 logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered 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 such trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that the term "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, but this is not sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily practice. However, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.