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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 정품인증 (www.pinterest.com) 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 studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could result in distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. Similarly, 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 requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide 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. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Bridgehome.cn) and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it's difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and 프라그마틱 플레이 settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to recruit participants quickly. In addition certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions 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.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.