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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that examine the effect of treatment across trials of 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 measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting up, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians in order to lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims about pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 순위 (he said) they aren't quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for 프라그마틱 무료 these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Several 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 help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should 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). These terms may indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's not clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread, pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patients that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.