• 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 무료 infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could lead to distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 for example focused on the functional outcome to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, 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 cut down on costs and time commitments. In the end these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 but it's not clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials don't have 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 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.