• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have 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 evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians, as this may lead to bias in the estimation of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain 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 scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 무료게임 colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays, or 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they include patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may 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 requirement to recruit participants quickly limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.