• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting up and 슬롯 design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as 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 a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that 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 could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and 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 scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, 프라그마틱 사이트 flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a 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 et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. For 프라그마틱 불법 example, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 순위 Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to enroll participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valuable and valid results.