• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the participation of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could cause bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut 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 accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases 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 be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 example, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and 프라그마틱 무료 게임, Infopagex.Com, scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valuable and valid results.