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

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians as this could cause distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include 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 especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, 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 a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to 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, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 슬롯 팁; Postheaven.net, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is 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 understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants on time. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.