• 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, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 healthcare professionals in order to result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and 프라그마틱 정품인증 공식프라그마틱 홈페이지 (intern.ee.aeust.edu.tw) the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

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 study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the baseline.

Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or 프라그마틱 정품 coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, 무료 프라그마틱 and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than anticipated 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 restricted by the need to recruit participants on time. Additionally certain 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valuable and valid results.