• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and 프라그마틱 추천 its definition and assessment need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

The trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians, as this may result in distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is 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 concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and 프라그마틱 순위 슬롯체험 (Webookmarks.Com) the term's use should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical 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 unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, 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 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific nor sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may 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). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. 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 RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.