• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, such as its participation of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or 프라그마틱 이미지 (http://Brewwiki.win/wiki/Post:The_Three_Greatest_Moments_In_Pragmatic_Korea_History) the clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Certain 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. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). 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 evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows widespread, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have 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 that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical setting, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.