• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials with 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 not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. 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 research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 정품확인 Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat method 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 combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. 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 years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. In addition certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in one or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 정품 확인법 (www.google.Ci) more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.