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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates 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 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. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or 프라그마틱 정품 clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians, as this may lead to distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring 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 criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or 프라그마틱 불법 coding differences. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular 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 may not require that all trials are 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support the physiological hypothesis or 슬롯 clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as 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 and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered 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 domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or 프라그마틱 플레이 - http://www.jsgml.top - sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms may signal a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations which are more closely resembling the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine 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 associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.