자유게시판

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

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, 프라그마틱 환수율 not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can 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 requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, 프라그마틱 무료 with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly 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 analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's not clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance, 프라그마틱 게임 participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and 프라그마틱 무료 that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday clinical practice, 프라그마틱 불법 however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valuable and valid results.