• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment 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 used inconsistently and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially 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 in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor 프라그마틱 순위 sensitive). The use of these terms 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 times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 정품 사이트 (images.Google.com.ly) and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack 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. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 정품 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 - more about Google - recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.