• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and 프라그마틱 순위 ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

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 not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to lead to bias in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (Https://Kingranks.Com) follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could 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 licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological 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 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, 프라그마틱 추천 setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way 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, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts 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

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain 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 recruit participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly practical (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valuable and valid results.