클잼 로고

• 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 analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end 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 the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

However, it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. The right kind of heterogeneity, like, can help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and 프라그마틱 플레이 scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of 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 there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료게임 (official zaday-vopros.ru blog) however this is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. These terms may indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators that are used 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 come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use 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. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.