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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and 프라그마틱 슬롯 ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and 프라그마틱 데모 design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians in order to lead to bias in estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, 무료 프라그마틱 the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and 프라그마틱 무료체험 published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, 프라그마틱 정품확인 logistical or protocol changes during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatic There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with 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, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

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

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations 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 can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some 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). The necessity to recruit people quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.