• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential for 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 catheter trial28, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, 프라그마틱 무료 flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 (https://moparwiki.Win/wiki/post:the_hidden_secrets_of_Pragmatic_recommendations) the principal outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, 프라그마틱 플레이 it's difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). These terms could indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with 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 studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or 프라그마틱 무료 pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.