• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of the trial may alter its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, 프라그마틱 delays or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and 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 were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however, 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 there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms may indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Additionally, some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and 슬롯 follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, 프라그마틱 플레이 순위 (click through the up coming website) could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valuable and valid results.