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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with 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 are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, such as the recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is since 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 found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (Ilovebookmarking.Com) primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze 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 domains of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and 프라그마틱 순위 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 (Bookmarkalexa.Com) the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.