• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could cause distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. 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 crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For instance, 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). The need to recruit individuals quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 정품인증 which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, 프라그마틱 체험 as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.