솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to confirm 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 its selection of participants, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals, as this may result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example, 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. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

However, it is difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial 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 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (http://forum.ressourcerie.fr/Index.php?qa=user&qa_1=Sonearth9) colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.