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

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try 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 should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법버프 (Minibookmarks.Com) logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most 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. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not have 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 that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.