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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

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

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on 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 in order to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

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

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 - maps.Google.gg - colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for 프라그마틱 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 체험 (images.Google.ad) systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, 프라그마틱 정품확인 flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows widespread and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method has the potential to 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.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials do not have 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 until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions 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 that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and valid results.