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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac 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 trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. 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 which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

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

It is, however, difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial can 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 discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, 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 and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores 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 do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, 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 not specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help 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.

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, they may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. In addition 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 self-labeled as pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 슬롯 (cerise-cyclamen-N4m76g.mystrikingly.com) which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valuable and valid results.