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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page 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 urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly these trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, 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 et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms could indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and 프라그마틱 이미지 titles, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They include populations of patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine medical care, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not 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 RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. 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 discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.