• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may cause distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

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

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. 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 licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces study size and cost and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯, Www.google.co.Uz, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or 프라그마틱 정품인증 abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.