• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices 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 selection of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may result in bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of 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 but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term must be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning 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 and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable data for making decisions within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its pragmatism score. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, 프라그마틱 순위 flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (click the next document) and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. 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 evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valuable and valid results.