• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various 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 consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

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

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and 슬롯 (go source) conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior 프라그마틱 무료스핀 to licensing, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 환수율 (pragmatickr-com20964.dreamyblogs.com) and the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Additionally practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is essential 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 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence 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 that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to recruit participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valuable and valid results.