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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to real-world 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 major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the 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.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary 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 harming the quality of the results.

However, 프라그마틱 it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or 프라그마틱 무료게임 coding differences. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler 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.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's not clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected 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 limited by the need to recruit participants quickly. Additionally certain 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 RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help 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 principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.