• 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 a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly 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. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to real-world clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians in order to lead to bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised 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, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 추천 체험; Bookmark-rss.com, however this is not sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. These terms may indicate a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, 프라그마틱 무료게임 pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher chance 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 may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to recruit participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine pragmatism. It covers 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 highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.