• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have 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 for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, 프라그마틱 체험 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (Https://traffic.pubexchange.com/) is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians in order to lead to bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation 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 goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 to licensing. Most were also single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes 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 mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability 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, they may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

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

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 relevant to everyday practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.