• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 (Continue) the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 조작 (zenwriting.net official website) setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 환수율 - Continue, 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 complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may result in bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the baseline.

In addition the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might 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). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in 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 a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.