• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with 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. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as 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 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and 프라그마틱 슬롯 standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within 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 explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular 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 can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally 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 doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 [Wx.abcvote.Cn] pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and 프라그마틱 순위 데모 (stairways.wiki) follow-up, as well as flexible 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 et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic 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 poor quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms may signal a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated 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 manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack 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-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.