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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

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

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

However, it's difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 플레이 the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 there is a growing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor 프라그마틱 무료 sensitive). These terms could indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

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

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.