• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians in order to cause distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require invasive procedures or 프라그마틱 정품 have potentially harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, 프라그마틱 순위 but the primary outcome and 프라그마틱 이미지 (bbs.ebei.Vip) the method for missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. 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 remember that a 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, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms could indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

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, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or 프라그마틱 슬롯 more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.