• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and 프라그마틱 사이트 diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

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 evaluation require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of 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 but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, 프라그마틱 정품확인 pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or 프라그마틱 정품확인 logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding differences. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 colleagues10 developed an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 정품확인 higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valuable and valid results.