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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and 프라그마틱 환수율 distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians in order to result in bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and the method for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in 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 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention 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 high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.