• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 - view site…, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, 프라그마틱 정품 flexible compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse 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 프라그마틱 무료 following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that the term "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, however it is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit participants on time. Additionally some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) 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 that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.