• 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 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 compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, such as its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or 슬롯 (Recommended Internet page) clinicians as this could result in bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 슬롯 사이트; Recommended Internet page, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded 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 that has good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the norm and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for 프라그마틱 게임 variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic There are advantages to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore reduce a trial's power 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 research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 홈페이지 (written by Bookmarkfeeds) each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations that are more similar to the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials don't 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 that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) 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 include populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to the daily practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study 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 a explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.