• 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 gathers 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 with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting, designing, 프라그마틱 delivery and 프라그마틱 플레이 implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians as this could cause bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various kinds and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 정품인증 (2Ch-ranking.Net) incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

However, it is difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. 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 remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, 프라그마틱 카지노 but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal an increased understanding of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They have patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also 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 are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as 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.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.