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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have 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 not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable 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 relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. 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 patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard 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 may be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. 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. This means that they are not as common and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프체험 (Images.Google.ms) physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They include populations of patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The need to recruit individuals quickly reduces the size of the sample and 슬롯 the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

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

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.