• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This could lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for 프라그마틱 무료체험 순위 (Bysee3.com) monitoring 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 aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 사이트 (https://lt.dananxun.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=499156) and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). 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 were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding differences. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of 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, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, 프라그마틱 무료 and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research which include the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

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, 무료 프라그마틱 which includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions 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.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial 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 can yield valid and useful results.