• 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 clean trial data, ratings, and 프라그마틱 evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

The trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians as this could lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows 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 contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform clinical or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for 프라그마틱 무료게임 missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Another common aspect 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 comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 슬롯 추천 (Thebookmarklist.Com) pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. 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 sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the pragmatism of these trials. 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 higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valuable and valid results.