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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with 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. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians as this could result in bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes 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 particularly relevant in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not 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 can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the usual practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, 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, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "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 however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 슬롯 무료 (https://atavi.com/share/Wud1rdzadlp4) example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 follow-up. They found 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 more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.