• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as 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 require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 such as its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could cause bias in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might 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 can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). 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 procedure for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

However, it is difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary 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 the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as 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. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 이미지 - please click the following webpage, pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process 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 note 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 it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

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 that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They involve patients that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess pragmatism. It covers areas 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 above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.