• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, 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 could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try 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, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, 프라그마틱 무료게임 inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, 슬롯 setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence 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 simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. 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 study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 but it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. In addition certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical. However, they don't ensure that a study is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.