• 목록
• 답변
• 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 cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or 프라그마틱 physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation 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 that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

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

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number 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. These terms could indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more popular and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and 프라그마틱 체험 the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the 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 pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in clinical practice, 프라그마틱 불법 슬롯 팁 (simply click for source) and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.