• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and 프라그마틱 플레이 measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals in order to cause distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for dangerous adverse events. 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. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

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 misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical 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 cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, 프라그마틱 the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of the trial may alter its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, 프라그마틱 게임 this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and 프라그마틱 불법 therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up 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 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in 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 domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the lack of the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could 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 necessity to recruit people quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have 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 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.