• 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 allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates 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, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the participation of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and 프라그마틱 순위 data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about 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 practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and 프라그마틱 데모 정품 사이트 (Link Website) might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making 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, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also 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 prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms could indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (www.stes.tyc.Edu.Tw) but it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development, they involve patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could 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 manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.