• 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 collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as 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 inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may lead to bias in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may 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 be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexibility in adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

However, it's difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, 프라그마틱 추천 protocol or logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the norm, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect minor 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and 프라그마틱 게임 pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 정품 확인법 (Images.Google.com.gt) with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and 프라그마틱 불법 - Www.0551gay.com - follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and 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 abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare 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 can overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might 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). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Additionally some pragmatic trials don't have 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 from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valuable and valid results.