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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows 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 types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to judge how practical a particular 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 can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and 프라그마틱 무료 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 important to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 example the rates of participation in some trials could 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). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. 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 themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valuable and valid results.