• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may result in bias in the estimation of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention 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 environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials might 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 information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

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

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of the trial may alter its score in pragmatism. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 플레이 순위 [check out the post right here] colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the baseline.

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 usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and 프라그마틱 무료체험 domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms could indicate a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, 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.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.