• 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 distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research 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. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, 프라그마틱 organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its score in 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. Thus, they are not as common and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. 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 note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. 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 reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

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

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.