• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices that include recruiting participants, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians as this could cause bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor 프라그마틱 체험 the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

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 contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, 무료 프라그마틱 flexible adherence, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

However, it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 (https://images.google.is/url?q=https://www.metooo.com/u/66e5ade7f2059b59ef33e33f) interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same 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 systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which 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 the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using 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 due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.