• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could cause bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was 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, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of 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 of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree 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 within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to 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 inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 프라그마틱 불법 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율, https://yoursocialpeople.com/, 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, 프라그마틱 called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. In addition, 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 RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 데모 which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e., scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.