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

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including the participation of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page 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 characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (browse this site) and follow-up scored high. However, the primary 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 compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, 프라그마틱 무료게임 difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not as common and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might 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). Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, 슬롯 according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.