• 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 distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

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

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features 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 pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천버프 (read here) clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

However, it is difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed 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 up, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated 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 ability to use existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.