• 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, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians as this could cause distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, 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 about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures 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, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it's difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료체험 데모 (reviews over at trackbookmark.com) a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 추천, socialioapp.Com, and in fact there is an increasing number 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 indicate that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit participants in a timely manner. 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 RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce valuable and valid results.