• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may result in bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 thus lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or 프라그마틱 슬롯 정품 확인법 (Isocialfans.Com) titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve populations of patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation 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). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, 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 rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.