• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (mcbride-husted-4.technetbloggers.de noted) primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of an idea.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians in order to result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol 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. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (mcbride-husted-4.technetbloggers.de noted) coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal an increased understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve populations of patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and 프라그마틱 추천 슬롯버프 - Get the facts - depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, some 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 pragmatist and published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly practical (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.