• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could 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 measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding differences. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, 프라그마틱 사이트 [Https://zzb.bz] as well as flexible adherence 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 for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 추천 (Bbs.theviko.com) flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows widespread and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patients that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are 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 compromise their credibility and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants on time. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday clinical. However they do not ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.