• 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 distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes 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 important when it comes to trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for 프라그마틱 dangerous 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, and the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 might be more susceptible to bias in their design, 프라그마틱 정품인증 conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of 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, however, difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the usual practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and 프라그마틱 체험 follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.