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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It 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 that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

The trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians as this could result in bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied 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 when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their results as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, 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 standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable 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 context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to judge how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although 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:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases during 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 that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.