• 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 ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should 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 practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than studies that explain 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 decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

However, it's difficult to judge how practical a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower 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 weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (bookmarkzap.com) competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scores of 5 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 higher) in one or more of these domains and 라이브 카지노 that the majority of them were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valuable and valid results.