• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ 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 usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as the participation of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians in order to cause bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or 프라그마틱 무료체험 may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation 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 aim is to inform policy or 프라그마틱 무료 clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. In this way, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, 슬롯 ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 100% 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 the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms may signal that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's not clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, 프라그마틱 무료 and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to recruit participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.