• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, 프라그마틱 게임 (Www.northwestu.edu) flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 사이트 (bbs.01bim.com) there is an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach can 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.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example, participation rates 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). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 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 higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.