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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and 프라그마틱 정품인증 evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians in order to result in bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for 무료 프라그마틱 데모 (maps.Google.hr) trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice, and 프라그마틱 이미지 can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.