• 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 무료게임 infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

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 not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians as this could cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

However, it is difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adherence 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, 프라그마틱 무료게임 known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, 무료 프라그마틱 they involve populations of patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and 프라그마틱 사이트 they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday clinical. However they do not ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valuable and valid results.