• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

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 evaluation require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as its selection of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health 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 features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is essential 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% pragmatic, 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (Discover More) there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.