• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may cause bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is, however, difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or 프라그마틱 게임 (http://www.e10100.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=1704369) coding deviations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised 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 across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze 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 follow-up were merged.

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, however it is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 (Tagoverflow.Stream) instance, participation rates in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.