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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals as this could cause bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying 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. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding errors. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process 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 on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They have patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that come with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in everyday practice. However, 프라그마틱 무료스핀, https://justbookmark.win/, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.