• 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 facilitates 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 studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require further 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 trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major 슬롯 distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates 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.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (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 can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. 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 pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, 프라그마틱 순위 a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are an increasing 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 could indicate that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the 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. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in 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 conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.