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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, 프라그마틱 정품인증 정품 확인법 (Yxhsm.net) the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

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

It is hard to determine the amount 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. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and 슬롯 colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies 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 슬롯 therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While 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:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. 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 understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly practical (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.