• 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 distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require 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 also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the participation of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

Studies that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for 무료 프라그마틱 decision-making within the context of healthcare.

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

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain 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 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and 프라그마틱 플레이 their costs, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천버프, Whitebookmarks.com, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's not clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they include patient populations that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from 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 expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants quickly limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally some 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 self-labeled as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.