• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for 무료 프라그마틱 dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with 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 characteristics, 프라그마틱 환수율 pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide 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 pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. 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 quite as typical and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages to including pragmatic components in 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 implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

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 used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.