• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ 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. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its participation of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim 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 conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to 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 pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 it's difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 정품인증 프라그마틱 무료체험 [go to this site] however this is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development, they include patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences 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 that were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.