• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as possible, such as its selection of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians as this could lead to distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, 프라그마틱 이미지 pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of a trial can change its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Thus, 프라그마틱 사이트 they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence 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 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 trials included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to delays, errors or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 순위, http://emseyi.com, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They include patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 a higher chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

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

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.