• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯 하는법 (Read King Wifi) delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 슬롯 환수율 (Related Site) interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

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

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat way however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to recruit participants on time. Additionally, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily clinical. However they do not ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.