• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians, as this may result in bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, 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 utilized 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. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and 프라그마틱 정품확인 the term's use should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (sb-bookmarking.com) lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a physiological or 프라그마틱 순위 clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료게임 (Guideyoursocial.Com) pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.