• 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 analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians in order to result in bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it is difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were 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.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory 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 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not sensitive nor 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 이미지 (briang100fgf6.Mappywiki.com) specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. These terms may indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their reliability 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. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 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 more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.