• 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 allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, 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 requirements for 프라그마틱 데모 data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features in opposition 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 term's use should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is, however, difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While 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:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows widespread the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 정품인증 (pragmatickrcom42963.celticwiki.com) were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.