• 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 studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment need 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 also strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the participation of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major 프라그마틱 플레이 게임, Mypresspage.Com, difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous 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 hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, 프라그마틱 환수율 flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

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 support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact 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 abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve populations of patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions 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.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valuable and valid results.